Capture the active Rhino viewport to the clipboard with customizable pixel width and height, providing a quick way to save or share the current view.
Capture the active viewport to the clipboard.
Args:
width: Image width in pixels.
height: Image height in pixels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | No | ||
| height | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior—capturing the active viewport and sending it to the clipboard—but does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing clipboard contents or what happens if no viewport is active.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the key action. The parameter documentation is minimal and directly useful, with no filler or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple two-parameter utility with an output schema, so the description covers nearly everything needed to invoke it correctly. It could be improved by noting clipboard overwrite behavior or differentiating from file-capture tools, but the core invocation context is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Arg docs add meaningful semantics by specifying that width and height are image dimensions in pixels, which the schema alone does not provide. No constraints or minimums are given, but the two parameters are adequately explained for typical use.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: capture the active viewport to the clipboard. It is distinct from likely siblings like rhino_view_capture_to_file because the destination is explicit, though it does not name or differentiate from those siblings directly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_view_capture_to_file, rhino_screenshot, or rhino_render_viewport. The description explains what the tool does but not the conditions that would make it the best choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.