Adjust depth of field blur and exposure settings, including auto exposure, on a game camera.
Configure DOF, exposure, auto-exposure on camera
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | Action: get or set | |
| dofBlurFar | No | DOF far blur distance | |
| dofBlurNear | No | DOF near blur distance | |
| autoExposure | No | Enable auto exposure | |
| dofBlurAmount | No | DOF blur amount | |
| autoExposureScale | No | Auto exposure scale | |
| exposureMultiplier | No | Exposure multiplier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Configure' without explaining that the action parameter supports get and set, what side effects occur, or whether reads and writes are both covered. The agent gets almost no behavior detail beyond the tool's name.
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 redundant wording. It is concise and readable, though its brevity means it sacrifices useful context about the action parameter and usage nuances.
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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too minimal. It omits how the action parameter works, whether parameters can be combined, any defaults or side effects, and how it fits among the many camera-related sibling tools.
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 the parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a high-level grouping of DOF, exposure, and auto-exposure, which maps to the schema but does not add meaningful semantics beyond it.
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 names a specific verb ('Configure') and a specific resource ('camera') with clear attribute areas (DOF, exposure, auto-exposure). It distinguishes the tool's focus from siblings like game_set_camera, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself or mention the dual get/set capability.
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 this tool is for adjusting camera DOF, exposure, and auto-exposure settings, which gives an agent a reasonable usage context. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives or how it relates to game_set_camera or camera-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.