Set the 3D view to any standard orientation and fit the model within the viewport.
Point the camera at a standard orientation - front, back, top, bottom, left, right, isometric, iso_rear or dimetric - and fit the model in the window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fit | No | Zoom to fit afterwards. | |
| orientation | No | front | back | top | bottom | left | right | isometric | iso_rear | dimetric. | isometric |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the behavioral specifics: it changes the camera to a standard orientation and optionally fits the model. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context about the tool's effect beyond the name.
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?
A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose (point the camera) and enumerates the allowed orientations. No wasted words; it is both concise and well-structured.
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 simple view command with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description and schema together cover everything an agent needs: the action, the orientation options, and the fit behavior. There are no missing requirements or ambiguous context.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'fit' and 'orientation' already documented with descriptions and enumerated values. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full weight.
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: point the camera at a standard orientation (listing all nine allowed values) and fit the model. This distinguishes it from siblings like catia_zoom (which zooms) and catia_fit_all (which fits without orientation). The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.
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 description provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when a standard orientation and fit are desired. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., catia_zoom for custom zoom levels, catia_fit_all for fit-only). The context is clear but not fully explicit about 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.