Skip to main content
Glama

render_scene

Renders the current Maya scene using the active Arnold or Maya Software engine and saves it as a PNG, with optional width, height, and output path overrides.

Instructions

Render the current Maya scene with Arnold or Maya Software (whichever is active) and return it as a PNG. width/height override the resolution for this render only. output_path is where to save the render.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "render_scene"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
widthNo
heightNo
output_pathNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose useful traits: renderer is auto-selected from the active engine, output is a PNG, and resolution overrides are non-persistent. It omits whether a scene must be loaded, whether output_path's directory must exist, expected render duration, and how the PNG is returned relative to being saved.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the parameter notes following. No filler, though the parameter sentence could be slightly more informative for the space it occupies.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool it covers the essentials, but leaves open whether the returned PNG duplicates the saved file, what happens if output_path is omitted, and what resolution is used when width/height are null.

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

Parameters3/5

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, and it does explain all three params: width/height override resolution for this render only, and output_path is the save location. However it gives no default values, units, or expected path format, leaving gaps in a 0%-coverage schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Render the current Maya scene') plus the renderer selection rule and the output format (PNG). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_viewport_screenshot or export_scene, so an agent must infer the difference.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the name and the mention of active renderer, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus get_viewport_screenshot (fast preview) or export_scene (file export). The 'for this render only' note hints at a temporary override but not when to choose one tool over another.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.