Render SVG strokes into a PNG preview confined to a specified canvas box, simulating real pen plotter output and faults.
Render an SVG (paths/shapes, strokes only — fills are ignored) fitted into the box (x,y,w,h) in canvas mm (default: whole canvas). Returns a PNG.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| h | No | ||
| w | No | ||
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| svg | Yes | ||
| simulate | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: fills are ignored (strokes only), coordinates are in canvas mm, and the box defaults to the whole canvas. It omits any mention of what the simulate flag does.
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 compact sentence with no waste, front-loading the render action and the strokes-only constraint. It could be shorter only by dropping genuinely useful detail.
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 readOnly/idempotent annotations and no output schema, the description correctly states the PNG return, so return handling is fine. However, the simulate parameter (default true) is never explained, and the svg input format is unspecified, leaving gaps an agent must guess at for a 6-parameter tool.
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 carry parameter meaning. It documents x,y,w,h as a fit box in canvas mm with a whole-canvas default, but says nothing about the required svg string's expected format or the simulate parameter at all, leaving two of six parameters uninterpretable.
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?
States a specific verb ("Render") and resource (SVG, paths/shapes) and declares the output (PNG), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling draw_svg, but the "preview" framing is implied by the render-only nature.
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?
Usage is only implied: rendering rather than committing, and returning a PNG, suggests a non-side-effecting preview as opposed to draw_svg. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, leaving the agent to infer the preview-vs-draw split from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.