Add a LaTeX equation to a Manim scene with position, color, and scale controls so animations can render mathematical formulas correctly.
Add a LaTeX equation (e.g. tex=r'e^{i\pi}+1=0').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| tex | Yes | ||
| color | No | ||
| scale | No | ||
| scene_id | No | ||
| project_id | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this mutates a scene, what happens with existing scene state, whether an open scene/project is required, how positioning or scaling defaults behave, or any side effects. The LaTeX syntax example is useful but not behavioral context.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text, and the example is compact. However, its extreme brevity leaves the tool under-specified for a 7-parameter mutation operation.
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?
Given the complexity of 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is far too thin. It omits scene/project context, positioning semantics, and mutation behavior, providing only the required tex example.
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% and there are 7 parameters. The description only illustrates the required tex parameter and says nothing about x, y, color, scale, scene_id, or project_id, leaving most parameters undocumented in both schema and description.
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 and resource: 'Add a LaTeX equation', and includes an example of the required tex parameter. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_text and add_plot by resource type, though it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over add_text.
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 or when not to use this tool, no mention of alternatives among sibling add_* tools, and no prerequisites such as needing an open scene or project. The only usage signal is the required tex parameter example.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.