ImmunoGraph MCP

visualize_results

Read-onlyIdempotent

Build deterministic chart or graph view models from supplied evidence so UIs can render research results; returns view-model data, not images or independent analysis.

Instructions

Build a deterministic visualization view model from supplied evidence for the selected chart or graph type. Use when a UI will render results; create_molstar_view is for coordinate-based 3D HTML. Returns view-model data, not a PNG or an independent scientific analysis.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`runId`	Yes	Caller-chosen identifier linking this call to one research run.
`visualizationType`	Yes	Named chart or graph view-model type to construct.
`visualizationSnapshot`	No	Caller-supplied data for building a view model; no image is rendered.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether execution completed successfully.
`data`	No	Tool-specific result fields on success.
`meta`	Yes	Run identifiers, timings, and input/output hashes.
`error`	No	Structured failure on unsuccessful execution.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.2.1Oct 31, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / runId / description

Added value: +"Caller-chosen identifier linking this call to one research run."

addedInput schema / properties / visualizationSnapshot / description

Added value: +"Caller-supplied data for building a view model; no image is rendered."

addedInput schema / properties / visualizationType / description

Added value: +"Named chart or graph view-model type to construct."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "Tool-specific result fields on success.",
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "Structured failure on unsuccessful execution.",
+      "properties": {
+        "category": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "code": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "details": {
+          "additionalProperties": {},
+          "properties": {},
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "retryable": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "code",
+        "category",
+        "message",
+        "retryable"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "meta": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "Run identifiers, timings, and input/output hashes.",
+      "properties": {
+        "completedAt": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "durationMs": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "inputHash": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "outputHash": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "requestId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "runId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "startedAt": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "toolName": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "toolVersion": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "requestId",
+        "runId",
+        "toolName",
+        "toolVersion",
+        "startedAt",
+        "inputHash"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "Whether execution completed successfully.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "meta"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.2.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: output is deterministic, it is a view model rather than a rendered image, and it performs no independent scientific analysis. That last caveat usefully bounds what an agent should infer from the result.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the usage condition, then the output contract. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, yet the description still clarifies the return kind (view-model data, not a PNG), which is the one thing an agent could plausibly get wrong. With 100% parameter coverage and annotations in place, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the runId linkage and the visualizationType enum, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only obliquely clarifies visualizationSnapshot ('from supplied evidence'; 'no image is rendered'), which is a small addition over the schema's own note.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb + resource: 'Build a deterministic visualization view model ... for the selected chart or graph type.' It also explicitly draws the boundary against the closest-sounding sibling, create_molstar_view, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('Use when a UI will render results') and names the alternative plus its distinguishing trait (coordinate-based 3D HTML). It does not say when *not* to use it in other circumstances or how to choose among the seven visualization types, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server