render_wireframeCheck tsquare wireframe text and render it. Returns a PNG of the board so you can see it, or the problems by line number (with the valid options) if the text isn't valid. Fix every problem and call it again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The wireframe in tsquare text (a ```tsquare code fence around it is fine). | |
| flows | No | Draw flow arrows (default true). false leaves them out, as if there were no flow lines. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses both outcomes (a PNG on success, per-line problems plus the valid options on failure) and the expected retry behavior. It does not mention cost, size limits, or latency, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the return contract and the retry instruction. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; there is 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?
With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of explaining both return shapes (PNG vs. line-numbered problems), which is the main gap it needed to close. It is complete enough to call correctly, though a note on how to obtain valid tsquare syntax would round it out.
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 both `text` and `flows` are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the framing that the input is tsquare text to be validated and rendered; it says nothing extra about the `flows` toggle, 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Check ... and render" the tsquare wireframe text) and names the concrete artifact produced (a PNG of the board). It is clear what the tool does, but it never mentions its siblings (wireframe_guide, share_wireframe), so differentiation is left to the agent.
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 gives a clear usage loop: call it, and if the text is invalid, fix every reported problem and call again. That is actionable guidance for the main workflow, though it offers no explicit when-not or pointer to wireframe_guide for learning tsquare syntax.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.