Positions the viewport camera in world space and optionally aims it at a target point, so an AI assistant can control what an Omniverse Kit scene view shows.
Set the viewport camera position and optionally aim it at a target point.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | [x, y, z] point to look at | |
| position | Yes | [x, y, z] camera position in world space |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds that the camera is a 'viewport camera' and that aiming at a target is optional, which is useful context, but it does not describe side effects such as whether the change is persistent, undoable, or affects saved scenes.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. Every clause earns its place by stating the main action and the optional aiming behavior.
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?
With an output schema present and full schema descriptions for the two parameters, the description need not explain return values. It adequately covers the core behavior for a simple camera-setter, though it could be stronger by mentioning how it relates to look_at_prim or whether camera changes persist.
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%, so both parameters are already documented as [x, y, z] vectors. The description only restates that position and optional target exist, adding no format or behavioral detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set the viewport camera position' and optionally aim it at a target point. This is clear action but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling look_at_prim, which also aims the camera, so it falls short of a 5.
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 implies when to use the tool, namely to position the viewport camera and optionally aim it. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as look_at_prim, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.