Frames the Houdini viewport around all geometry for a complete scene overview. Use when inspecting full-scene layout; refuses if isolate matches no OBJ.
Frame the viewport on all geometry.
Refuses if isolate matches no OBJ (that framed the infinite grid).
Use frame_bbox for a character/hero.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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. It does disclose a useful edge-case behavior (refusal when isolate matches no OBJ, which leaves the infinite grid framed), but says nothing about whether this mutates scene state or what the viewport changes affect.
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 lines, front-loaded with the action, followed immediately by the caveat and the routing hint. No filler.
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?
A parameterless, output-schema-backed viewport tool is well covered by the action statement, the refusal caveat, and the sibling pointer. Only a note on what the viewport change affects (state mutation) would make it fully rounded.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description neither needs nor provides parameter detail.
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?
"Frame the viewport on all geometry" gives a specific verb and resource, and the note routing character/hero framing to frame_bbox distinguishes it from a key sibling. It does not distinguish itself from frame_selection, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
It explicitly names the alternative (frame_bbox for a character/hero), which is real routing guidance. There is no explicit when-not beyond that, and frame_selection is never mentioned, so it stops short of the full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.