Check which saved layout the active chart is using to confirm a layout switch or detect user-driven changes.
Which saved layout the attached chart is currently showing. Use it to confirm a layout switch landed, to detect that the user has moved since a setup was saved, and to state which chart a reading describes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation by saying the tool reports what the chart is 'currently showing' and by framing it as a confirmation/detection mechanism. It also adds useful context that the result reflects live user state, not just stored metadata.
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 compact and front-loaded: it states what the tool reports first, then lists specific use cases. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.
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-parameter state query, the description is largely complete: it explains the returned concept and when to use the tool. It does not specify the exact return format or edge-case behavior when no layout is active, but the core information an agent needs is present.
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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter behavior. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds relevant context about what the returned value represents.
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 tool as a state query: it reports which saved layout the attached chart is currently showing. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like layout_switch and layout_list by emphasizing the current, active layout of the attached chart. Although it lacks an explicit imperative verb, the meaning is unambiguous.
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 description gives three concrete use cases: confirming a layout switch landed, detecting user movement after a setup was saved, and attributing a reading to a specific chart. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the use cases make the context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.