Zoom to the extents of all geometry to frame the entire model in the viewport. Optionally apply the zoom to all viewports instead of just the active one.
Zoom to the extents of all geometry.
Args:
all_viewports: If True, zoom all viewports; otherwise only the active one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all_viewports | 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 provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does clearly specify the scope ('all geometry') and viewport behavior ('all' vs 'active one'). It does not explicitly state that the operation is view-only and does not modify geometry, but the verb 'zoom' and absence of mutation language make that reasonably clear.
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 minimal and well-organized: one clear sentence for the core purpose and one sentence for the parameter. There is no filler, no restatement of the name, and no redundant detail.
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?
For a single-parameter, low-complexity view tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and parameter behavior adequately. The main missing piece is explicit sibling differentiation, though the 'all geometry' wording provides a usable selection signal.
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?
The input schema only provides a boolean named 'All Viewports' with a default value, but the description explains the exact conditional behavior: true means zoom all viewports, false means only the active one. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 action ('Zoom') and the target ('extents of all geometry'), which tells an agent what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from closely related siblings such as rhino_zoom_extent, rhino_zoom_selected, or rhino_zoom_layer; the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.
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?
The phrase 'all geometry' implies this is the right tool when the user wants to see the whole model, and the all_viewports parameter adds context for multi-viewport behavior. But there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over the many sibling zoom 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.