Renders the exact native preview for a built variant—geometry, caption, link path, safe zones—and returns diffs plus approval-binding hashes so owners can verify before approval.
The exact native preview for a built variant — rendered geometry/caption/link path/safe zones — plus its diffs and the hashes an approval would bind.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variant_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what the preview returns (rendered elements, diffs, hashes), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, or what happens if the variant is not yet built.
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?
The description is a single dense sentence with the core purpose front-loaded before the list of returned elements. It is efficient, though the em-dash-separated jargon requires some parsing.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable account of return contents. However, it leaves gaps around parameter meaning and when to invoke it, which are important given the absence of annotations and schema descriptions.
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 compensate for the single parameter. It only implies that variant_id refers to a 'built variant' and adds no format, source, or validation details beyond the schema's required string type.
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 clearly identifies the resource as a preview for a built variant and enumerates what it contains: geometry, caption, link path, safe zones, diffs, and approval hashes. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like variant_build or receipt_list, keeping it from a 5.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as variant_build or receipt_list. The phrase 'for a built variant' implies a prerequisite but does not state usage conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.