Return a minimal canonical FigureSpec template, optionally customized via data ID, attribute, categories, and label value, to scaffold Hakowan figure specifications.
List or return minimal canonical FigureSpec templates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| data_id | No | data | |
| attribute | No | value | |
| categories | No | ||
| label_value | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as what 'minimal canonical' means in practice or whether these templates are empty scaffolds. It is consistent with the annotations but provides no extra transparency.
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 words. Both the action and the resource are placed prominently, making it easy to scan.
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?
Despite having an output schema and safety annotations, the tool has five parameters and zero schema coverage. The description provides no parameter semantics, no usage guidance, and no behavioral context, leaving the tool underspecified for an agent to call correctly.
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 the description does not mention any of the five parameters (name, data_id, attribute, categories, label_value). An agent cannot infer what these parameters control or how they affect the returned template from the description alone.
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 ('minimal canonical FigureSpec templates') and the action ('List or return'). It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_spec or get_schema, but the dual verb 'List or return' leaves the selection logic between modes slightly implicit.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'List or return' implies that providing a name returns one template while omitting it lists all, but this is not stated, and there are no exclusion criteria or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.