Activate a camera view in a viewport (optionally a specific one) to switch directly to that camera's perspective.
把一个相机设为活动视口（可指定第几个视口 viewport）。等价于进入该相机的视图。 [English] Make a camera the active viewport (optionally a specific viewport index). Equivalent to entering that camera's view.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| camera | Yes | 相机名称。 | Camera name. | |
| viewport | No | 视口编号（>0 时指定具体视口）。 | Viewport index (>0 selects a specific one). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutating nature is disclosed. The description adds context by equating the action to entering the camera's view, which clarifies the side effect on the user's viewpoint. This goes beyond the annotations, providing useful behavioral detail without repetition.
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 two concise sentences (one bilingual), directly stating the action and its equivalence. No unnecessary detail, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the optional viewport behavior, and the expected outcome. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (camera name and viewport index) already documented in the input schema. The description reiterates the viewport index meaning but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the action: setting a camera as the active viewport, with an optional viewport index. It also provides an equivalent metaphor ('entering that camera's view'), which makes the purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling camera tools like cam_look_through or viewport_set_view.
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 explains the core behavior and the optional viewport parameter, giving enough context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to select this tool over similar ones. No misleading guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.