scene_render_previewRender a 480p preview of a ManimGX scene and return its report. Use it to quickly check scene output before producing a final 1080p animation.
Render a 480p preview and return its report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it omits whether the preview is written to disk, where, whether it overwrites anything, and rough cost/time. It discloses resolution and that a report is returned, but for an operation with likely file side effects this leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.
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 compact sentence with the key detail (480p preview) front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though part of the sparseness reads as under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the input side and behavioral profile are badly under-covered: no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and no statement of side effects or relation to scene_render_final. For a render operation with likely writes, this is too thin to call 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 description coverage is 0%, so both project_id and scene_id are undocumented in the schema. The description does not describe them either, leaving the agent to infer their meaning and format from the parameter names alone.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Render a 480p preview' tells an agent exactly what the tool does and the resolution. The word 'preview' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling scene_render_final, but the distinction is never stated explicitly, so differentiation relies on the agent inferring from names.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no mention of the obvious alternative (scene_render_final) or project_render_batch. Usage is only implied by the word 'preview' — an agent infers this is a cheap pre-check before a final render, but nothing confirms that intent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.