Capture PNG output and compact visual evidence from a FigureSpec for visual inspection.
Capture PNG output and compact visual evidence from a FigureSpec.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec | Yes | ||
| views | No | ||
| passes | No | ||
| strict | No | ||
| output_dir | Yes | ||
| resolution | No | ||
| data_bindings | No | ||
| visual_criteria | No | ||
| include_manifest | 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 provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that the tool produces PNG output and compact visual evidence, implying file output. It does not contradict annotations, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether output_dir is created or overwritten, or how strict/visual_criteria affect behavior.
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 sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the verb and object. However, it is so terse that it omits essential context for a 9-parameter tool, so it is concise but not optimally informative.
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?
With 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no parameter explanations, the description is far from complete. It does not define the required spec/output_dir semantics, what views/passes/strict/resolution/visual_criteria control, or what 'compact visual evidence' means. The output schema covers return values, but the operational context is missing.
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 explain any of the 9 parameters, including required spec and output_dir, or optional views, passes, strict, resolution, data_bindings, visual_criteria, and include_manifest. The phrase 'from a FigureSpec' only hints at the spec parameter, leaving all other parameters semantically opaque.
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 uses a specific verb ('Capture') and names the resource ('PNG output and compact visual evidence from a FigureSpec'), so an agent can tell this is an observation/render-capture tool. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like render_spec or evaluate_visual_patch, and 'compact visual evidence' is somewhat vague.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use observe_spec versus render_spec, compile_spec, or evaluate_visual_patch. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions, leaving tool selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.