Convert a run_eval_contract() LLM Test Runner JSON result into a fully self-contained dark-themed HTML report with Pass/Fail badges, side-by-side Input/Output/Ground-Truth panels, evaluator score bars, and a radar chart. Returns the HTML as a string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | The JSON object returned by run_eval_contract() |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "html": {}
+}Input schema / properties / results / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +trueOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying the return type ('Returns the HTML as a string') and the self-contained nature, which are not in the annotations. No contradictions or hidden side effects are present.
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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core action and enumerates specific output components, with zero filler or redundant phrasing. Every clause adds value.
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?
Despite the tool's complexity (rich HTML report generation), the description fully specifies input source, output characteristics, and return type. An output schema exists, so return values are already structured, and the description adds the necessary behavioral context without leaving major gaps.
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 provides 100% coverage with a description for the single 'results' parameter. The tool description repeats this source info without adding further parameter-level detail (e.g., edge cases, required fields inside the object). Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('run_eval_contract() LLM Test Runner JSON result') and details the output format (dark-themed HTML report with badges, panels, score bars, radar chart). This clearly differentiates it from siblings and states exactly what the tool does.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever a run_eval_contract() result needs to be turned into a visual report. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is so specific that usage context is unambiguous. A named alternative would have earned a 5, but the absence doesn't hurt.
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.