Verify local Inkscape availability, capabilities, and security posture without exposing filesystem paths.
Reports local Inkscape availability, observed capabilities and security posture without exposing filesystem paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inkscape | No | ||
| actionCount | Yes | ||
| workspaceReady | Yes | ||
| securityPosture | Yes | ||
| diagnosticsCount | Yes | ||
| capabilitiesReady | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / properties / inkscape / properties / pageAdapterAdded value: +{
+ "const": "pages_v14",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / inkscape / properties / supportAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "experimental",
+ "stable",
+ "unsupported"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / inkscape / properties / warningsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / inkscape / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "installKind",
- "version"
-]New value: +[
+ "installKind",
+ "support",
+ "version",
+ "warnings"
+]Output schema / properties / securityPosture / properties / maximumSanitizeModeAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "strict",
+ "preserve-local",
+ "trusted"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / securityPosture / properties / nativeParserIsolationAdded value: +{
+ "const": "none",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / securityPosture / properties / residualRisksAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 2,
+ "minItems": 2,
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / securityPosture / properties / securityLevelAdded value: +{
+ "const": "workspace-guarded-native-unsandboxed",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / securityPosture / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "externalResources",
- "nativeInputPolicy",
- "overwriteDefault",
- "pathsRedacted",
- "workspaceReady"
-]New value: +[
+ "externalResources",
+ "maximumSanitizeMode",
+ "nativeInputPolicy",
+ "nativeParserIsolation",
+ "overwriteDefault",
+ "pathsRedacted",
+ "residualRisks",
+ "securityLevel",
+ "workspaceReady"
+]v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With only readOnlyHint provided by annotations, the description adds real behavioral context: it reports 'observed capabilities and security posture' and explicitly notes it operates 'without exposing filesystem paths', which tells the agent how the output is sanitized. It stops short of describing freshness, caching, or whether results reflect a live process state.
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 tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no redundant or filler clauses. Every phrase (availability, capabilities, security posture, path-safety) carries distinct information.
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?
For a zero-param read-only status tool, the description covers the key axes an agent cares about, and an output schema exists so return fields need not be explained. The only gap is the absence of any trigger condition telling the agent when this check is warranted.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. No argument syntax is expected or missing.
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 ('Reports') plus a concrete resource set: local Inkscape availability, observed capabilities, and security posture. It is clearly distinct from the many document/element manipulation siblings, though it does not name or contrast itself against any of them.
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: an agent can infer this is a readiness/environment check to run before invoking Inkscape-backed operations. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as document_preflight or path_effects_inspect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.