Fetch a camera's transform and lens settings by name or use the active scene camera to obtain data for Blender asset creation and validation.
A camera's transform and lens settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Camera name; omit for the active scene camera |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it can fail, what the return structure looks like, or any side effects. The name 'get' implies read-only, but the description itself is silent, providing no behavioral transparency beyond the resource content.
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 brief and free of redundancy, but it is just a fragment without a verb. It is concise in size, though the front-loaded resource name is the only substantive content. No filler words, so it earns a 4 for conciseness, but the lack of a verb hurts structure.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what the returned data contains. 'Transform and lens settings' gives a high-level hint, but not the structure, units, or how the active scene camera resolution works. For a simple getter this is barely adequate; significant details are left to the agent's 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage – the 'name' parameter is fully documented with 'Camera name; omit for the active scene camera'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 is a noun phrase – 'A camera's transform and lens settings' – that identifies the resource and the two aspects returned, but it doesn't explicitly state the action (get/retrieve). It doesn't distinguish from list_cameras or get_object, though the 'transform and lens settings' hint narrows it. This is clear but not a fully explicit verb+resource statement.
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 instead of list_cameras, get_object, or set_camera_transform. The description doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a camera name or the active-scene-camera fallback. There is no when/when-not or alternative tool named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.