Create, update, apply, or delete typed SVG arrow and dot markers by ID in Inkscape documents, without accepting raw path data or XML. Use for safe marker management on target paths.
Creates, replaces, applies or deletes typed SVG arrow/dot markers without accepting free path data or XML.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| revision | Yes | ||
| targetIds | No | ||
| backupCreated | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations supply only destructiveHint=true; the description corroborates this by naming a delete action, and adds a genuine behavioral constraint (no arbitrary path data or XML accepted). However it omits the concurrency semantics implied by expectedRevision, workspace scoping, and any authorization requirements, so the disclosure is partial.
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 that packs the resource, the four supported operations, and the key constraint with no filler. It is efficient, though the density leaves the action-to-verb mapping implicit.
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?
Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described. But for a four-branch oneOf tool with optimistic-concurrency (expectedRevision) and workspace scoping, the one-line description leaves material behavior unexplained, so it is only minimally complete.
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?
With schema description coverage at 100%, the schema already carries the parameter documentation, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only loosely echoes the action enum via its verb list and adds no syntax or format detail for expectedRevision, workspaceId, spec, or targetIds beyond what the schema encodes.
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 names a specific resource ('typed SVG arrow/dot markers') and enumerates the verbs (creates, replaces, applies, deletes) that map cleanly onto the schema's action const values create/update/apply/delete. This distinguishes it from the parallel *_manage siblings like masks_manage and filters_manage by resource alone, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with 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?
The clause 'without accepting free path data or XML' scopes usage (typed markers only) but stops short of saying when to reach for this tool versus an alternative such as path_modify or paths_boolean. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.