Skip to main content
Glama
rokibul-mist

rhino-mcp

by rokibul-mist
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

rhino_screenshot

Capture a Rhino viewport screenshot to a PNG file, optionally returning the image as base64 for inline inspection by the LLM.

Instructions

Capture a viewport screenshot (bridge required).

    With ``as_base64=True`` the response includes ``image_base64`` so
    the LLM can inspect the render inline. The PNG is also written to
    ``path`` regardless, for the user to save/share.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses that the PNG is always written to path and that image_base64 is optionally included for inline inspection. This is useful side-effect and return behavior; however, it does not mention overwrite behavior, permissions, or whether the bridge must already be active.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action, prerequisite, and the meaningful optional base64 behavior are all immediately visible.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Combined with the schema and output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, the always-written file side effect, and the inline inspection option. It does not explain what 'bridge required' entails or how the bridge is established, but that is a minor gap for selecting and invoking the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It only clarifies path and as_base64 behavior; width, height, mime, and doc_id are not addressed in the tool description. This is only partial compensation for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action and resource: 'Capture a viewport screenshot.' This is clear and matches the name, but it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings such as rhino_view_capture_to_file, rhino_viewport_image, or rhino_render_viewport.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies a use case: with as_base64=True the LLM can inspect the render inline, so the tool is useful when the model needs to see the viewport. It also notes a bridge prerequisite, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over sibling capture/render tools or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools