Render selected entities from a CAD job to a PNG image for previewing. Provide job_id, optional exchange and width, and receive the generated image.
Render a job's selected entities to PNG and return the image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| exchange | No | ||
| width_px | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys only the output medium (PNG), saying nothing about whether rendering requires the job to be in a particular state, whether it has side effects, whether it is read-only, or how large/slow the result is.
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?
A single tight sentence with the verb and result front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse given the documentation gaps, but as pure structure it is efficient.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters sitting in a dense sibling ecosystem with three other preview tools, the description omits far too much: no parameter guidance, no job-state prerequisites, and no sibling routing.
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% across three parameters. The description implies job_id via "a job's selected entities" but adds nothing about the exchange parameter or the width_px sizing control, leaving two parameters wholly 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?
States a specific verb (render) plus the resource (a job's selected entities) and the output format (PNG image), which is clear. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings drawing_preview and jww_preview, which presumably also render previews, so an agent cannot tell which preview tool applies to which domain without guessing.
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 indication of when to use this over drawing_preview, jww_preview, or gaihen_read, nor any prerequisite such as required job state or a prior gaihen_setup/gaihen_jobs call. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.