Position the in-game camera at exact world coordinates and set yaw, pitch, and vertical field of view to capture specific Assetto Corsa viewpoints.
Hold the camera at AC world position (x, y, z). yaw deg: 0 = look along -Z, 90 = +X, 180 = +Z, 270 = -X. pitch deg: + up, - down. fov: vertical FOV in degrees (0 = keep).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| z | Yes | ||
| fov | No | ||
| yaw | No | ||
| pitch | 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 does disclose two useful behavioral facts — 'hold' implies the pose persists, and 'fov: 0 = keep' defines a no-op default — but it never says whether entering free camera overrides an active camera mode, whether it is reversible, or whether the call takes effect immediately.
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?
Three short clauses, each adding information (position, yaw/pitch conventions, fov sentinel), with the primary action front-loaded. Slightly dense run-on formatting but no wasted sentences.
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 six-parameter camera mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers angle and fov semantics adequately but omits units for position, interaction with camera modes, and the effect/return of the call. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 the description must compensate and it partially does: it defines yaw degrees with concrete compass mapping, pitch sign, and the fov sentinel value. It leaves x/y/z as bare world coordinates with no units, scale, or reference origin, so three of six parameters remain semantically thin.
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 ('Hold the camera at AC world position') with the coordinate system named. It is distinguishable from a targeted-camera sibling only implicitly (explicit yaw/pitch angles rather than a look-at target), so it falls short of outright sibling differentiation.
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 guidance on when to use this versus ac_camera_look_at or ac_camera_mode, both of which set camera orientation in a different way. The angle conventions clarify how to call it, but not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.