preview_samplePreview built-in sample pages by generating a plan and comparison chart without a Notion token; omit sampleId to list available samples.
对内置的样例页面出计划和对比图，不需要 Notion token。sampleId 取 payment-spec、reading-notes、weekly-report 三者之一，不传则返回样例清单。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| themeId | No | 主题 id：clean-docs、warm-notes、focus-brief。缺省用 clean-docs | |
| sampleId | No | sample-payment-spec、sample-reading-notes 或 sample-weekly-report |
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 burden and does disclose the auth requirement (no Notion token) and what is produced (a plan and a comparison image). However, it does not say whether any files/artifacts are written, whether output persists, or how the plan relates to apply_plan, leaving the mutation/side-effect profile unclear.
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 tight sentences with zero waste: the capability and token-free constraint come first, then the parameter values and default. Slightly better structuring would separate the parameter details more cleanly, but nothing is redundant.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source; it covers the output conceptually (plan + comparison image) and the no-arg behavior. It does not cover the themeId parameter at all, nor the lifecycle of the generated preview relative to apply_plan/rollback siblings.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. But the description enumerates sampleId values as payment-spec/reading-notes/weekly-report while the schema requires the sample- prefixed forms (sample-payment-spec, etc.) — a literal conflict that could cause the agent to pass an invalid value. The useful addition is the omitted-parameter default (returns sample list), but the mismatch is actively harmful.
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 names a specific action (出计划和对比图) and resource (内置的样例页面), and adds a differentiating constraint (不需要 Notion token) that separates it from sibling preview_page/render_page without needing to inspect schemas. It doesn't explicitly name the real-page alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: the tool is for sample pages and needs no Notion token, and omitting sampleId returns the sample list. There is no explicit statement such as 'use preview_page for real Notion pages' or any prerequisite/exclusion, so the agent must infer when to prefer this over the other preview/render siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.