Render Markdown to an HTML preview fragment with word/char counts.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"input": "<input>"
},
"name": "markdown_preview"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gfm | No | ||
| input | Yes | ||
| breaks | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the purpose sentence. It does reveal two behavioral traits — the output is a fragment (not a full document) and counts are computed — but says nothing about safety, side effects, or how gfm/breaks alter rendering.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy; the verb and output type come first. It is arguably under-specified rather than concise, but as a structure judgment it wastes no words.
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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage on a 3-parameter tool, the description should compensate for all of that and does not. An agent cannot tell from this text how gfm or breaks change the result, nor why to pick this over the sibling Markdown tools.
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 0%, so the description must explain input, gfm, and breaks, and it explains none of them. 'Render Markdown' weakly implies the input is Markdown source, but the two boolean flags controlling GFM and line-break behavior are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Render Markdown to an HTML preview fragment') plus the added detail that word/char counts are included, so the core function is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely named siblings markdown_to_html and markdown_format, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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?
There is no statement of when to choose this over markdown_to_html or markdown_format, nor any precondition or exclusion. The agent must infer the 'preview' use case purely from the word 'preview' in the description.
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.