scene_render_finalRender an approved scene as a final 1080p60 video using project and scene IDs; use force to override existing output.
Render approved final video at 1080p60.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | ||
| scene_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| fps | Yes | ||
| width | Yes | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| stderr | Yes | ||
| stdout | Yes | ||
| exit_code | Yes | ||
| video_path | No | ||
| duration_seconds | No | ||
| storyboard_paths | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it doesn't say whether this overwrites prior renders, how long/heavy the operation is, whether it blocks, or whether approval is enforced server-side. Only the output resolution/framerate are disclosed, which is real value but leaves mutation semantics opaque.
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 front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. However it is so terse that brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail rather than from efficient packaging of it.
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 final-output mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema coverage, the description should explain the approval prerequisite, the force flag, and cost/overwrite behavior. The existing output schema covers return values, so that gap is excusable, but the input-side gaps are not.
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 0% for all three parameters. The description mentions none of project_id, scene_id, or force — the purpose of the force flag (re-render over an existing final? bypass approval?) is completely undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Render ... final video') plus a concrete output spec (1080p60). It implicitly distinguishes itself from scene_render_preview via 'final', but never names the sibling explicitly.
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?
'approved' hints at a precondition but never states who or what determines approval, nor when to choose this over scene_render_preview or project_build/project_render_batch. No exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.