Skip to main content
Glama
rokibul-mist

rhino-mcp

by rokibul-mist
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

rhino_view_capture_to_file

Capture the active Rhino viewport to a PNG file with specified dimensions and filename.

Instructions

    Capture the active viewport to a PNG file.
    
    Args:
    file_name: Output filename (saved to D:/RhinoFiles/).
    width: Image width in pixels.
    height: Image height in pixels.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
widthNo
heightNo
file_nameNocapture.png

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the output is saved to D:/RhinoFiles/ as a PNG, which is useful, but it does not mention whether existing files are overwritten, whether a viewport must be active, or any side effects. For a non-destructive capture tool, the disclosed behavior is adequate but minimal.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter list uses minimal words per parameter, with no fluff, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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?

For a simple capture tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is captured, the output format, the destination directory, and the meaning of all parameters. It lacks only usage guidance and overwrite behavior, which are not critical for a basic viewport capture but would improve completeness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the generic parameter titles. It does: file_name is explained as the output filename with a fixed directory, width as image width in pixels, and height as image height in pixels. This adds real meaning beyond the schema, though it does not mention constraints or defaults.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: capture the active viewport to a PNG file. This differentiates it from siblings like rhino_view_capture_to_clipboard and rhino_screenshot by specifying both the active viewport as the source and a PNG file as the destination.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as rhino_view_capture_to_clipboard, rhino_screenshot, or rhino_render_to_file. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the core action itself.

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