Retrieves TRMNL plugin markup by plugin setting ID and layout size, letting you inspect display content for previews or updates.
Read markup for a size TRMNL GET /api/plugin_settings/{plugin_setting_id}/markup/{size}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| profile | No | Configured profile name; defaults to default. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes nothing beyond a raw endpoint path — no note on auth, on whether markup can be absent for a given size, or on what a retrieved markup blob represents. A bare endpoint echo adds little.
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 lines with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. The endpoint line is somewhat odd as a second clause but is compact and 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?
No output schema exists, so the description must convey what comes back — HTML/Liquid source? JSON? an empty body when a size is unset? It doesn't. Combined with no sibling differentiation and an undocumented `profile` parameter, an agent has to guess at call outcomes.
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 50%: nested properties carry descriptions but the `path` wrapper and `profile` do not. The endpoint template does name plugin_setting_id and size, so it partially compensates, but it never explains the required nesting under `path` or the meaning of `profile`, which is the most under-documented parameter.
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 verb ('Read') and resource ('markup') plus the underlying REST endpoint, which confirms it retrieves stored markup rather than rendering it. However, 'for a size' is opaque — the enum values (markup_full, transform_js, tidbyt_canvas) are not explained, and the distinction from siblings like trmnl_write_markup or trmnl_render_markup is only implied.
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 trmnl_write_markup, trmnl_render_markup, trmnl_get_recipe_markup, or trmnl_get_plugin_setting_files, all of which are plausible near-substitutes. No prerequisites or conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.