Render annotated-document payloads as escaped interactive HTML without file access, enabling safe visualization of extractions and source spans.
Render an annotated-document payload as escaped interactive HTML without file access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| annotated_document | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is low. The description adds useful context by specifying 'escaped' HTML and 'without file access', clarifying that no filesystem writes occur and that output is sanitized. However, it does not describe error handling or other behavioral traits beyond those brief hints.
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 with no filler. Every element ('Render', the payload, the HTML output, and the no-file-access constraint) earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool whose only input is a moderately complex nested payload, the description omits how to construct that payload or its relationship to langextract_extract, leaving an agent to rely solely on the schema structure.
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, but it only restates the parameter as 'annotated-document payload' without explaining the required document_id, text, or extractions fields, or how they relate to the visualization. This adds little beyond the schema and parameter name.
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 states a specific verb ('Render'), a specific resource ('annotated-document payload'), and a clear output ('escaped interactive HTML'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like langextract_extract and langextract_status, though it does not explicitly name or contrast 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. The implied usage is only that it visualizes a payload, which is minimal context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.