Validate canvas resolution and aspect ratio against projector output to catch mismatches before projection mapping; optionally enforce square canvas dimensions.
Validate Canvas Resolution vs projector output (resolution + aspect).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| canvas_h | Yes | ||
| canvas_w | Yes | ||
| keep_square | No | ||
| projector_h | Yes | ||
| projector_w | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about what a failed validation produces, whether any pixera state is modified, whether aspect mismatch vs resolution mismatch are reported differently, or the meaning of keep_square.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is not padded or rambling, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a 5-parameter validation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves the comparison semantics, the keep_square behavior, and any usage context unstated.
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 name any of the five parameters. '(resolution + aspect)' hints that width/height pairs are compared, but keep_square and the distinction between canvas and projector values are left entirely unexplained by 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 (validate) and resource (canvas resolution against projector output), including the two dimensions checked (resolution and aspect). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like validate_softedge or validate_feed_mode by resource, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of how it relates to sibling validators or the planning/recommendation tools. An agent must infer that this is a pre-flight check run before rendering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.