Creates a new figure IR file and returns its path with the initial revision, enabling coding agents to start building versioned figures.
Create a new figure IR file. Returns the path and initial revision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| margin | No | ||
| figure_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ('path and initial revision'), but says nothing about overwrite behavior for an existing file, whether the file is written to disk immediately, permission requirements, or the units used for sizing fields.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return value — no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being genuinely tight.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description covers only the headline result. For a file-creating mutation tool with five undocumented parameters, missing overwrite semantics and sizing units leave the agent under-informed.
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, and it does not: none of the five parameters (path, figure_id, width, height, margin) are explained. Only a weak implied link between 'figure IR file' and the required path/figure_id fields, and the numeric defaults (182/58/4) are left uninterpreted.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new figure IR file') and adds a return-value note. The action is clearly distinct from siblings like papercanvas_get, papercanvas_patch, papercanvas_layout, or papercanvas_render, though it never names them explicitly.
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 on when to use this versus papercanvas_patch or papercanvas_get, and no prerequisites stated. An agent cannot tell from the description what happens if the path already exists or which figure state is required before creating.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.