Get or set MSAA, FXAA, TAA, scaling mode, and render scale to control anti-aliasing and rendering resolution.
Get/set MSAA, FXAA, TAA, scaling mode/scale
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taa | No | Enable TAA | |
| fxaa | No | Enable FXAA | |
| action | No | Action: get or set | |
| msaa2d | No | MSAA 2D mode (0-3) | |
| msaa3d | No | MSAA 3D mode (0-3) | |
| scalingMode | No | Scaling mode (0=bilinear, 1=FSR1, 2=FSR2) | |
| scalingScale | No | Render scale (0.0-1.0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it merely states 'Get/set' without explaining side effects, whether changes persist, whether the action parameter is required, or what happens if both get and set are attempted. The mutating nature is implied but not elaborated.
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 extremely concise and front-loads the core purpose with no filler. It is somewhat under-specified, but it earns its brevity by communicating the tool's scope in a single readable phrase.
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?
Given 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not sufficient. It does not explain the default behavior when 'action' is omitted, what the get operation returns, or which parameters apply to get versus set, leaving important operational details to inference.
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 schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds no further detail beyond naming the same settings, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a clear verb pair ('Get/set') and names the exact resources (MSAA, FXAA, TAA, scaling mode/scale), so an agent can infer what the tool operates on. It does not explicitly differentiate from related sibling tools like game_performance or game_viewport, but the specific render-setting vocabulary is enough to disambiguate.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as game_viewport, game_environment, or game_performance. The description gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing between get and set behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.