result_set_colormapSet the colormap for fire-simulation result displays to turbo, jet, inferno, viridis, or grayscale, and reverse colors when needed.
Set the result colormap. name: 'turbo'|'jet'|'inferno'|'viridis'|'grayscale'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 컬러맵 | |
| reversed | No | 색상 반전 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, readOnly=false and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavior: it does not say whether the colormap applies globally or per-plot, whether it persists, or what the second parameter does. It slightly duplicates the schema enum instead of adding context.
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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is efficient, though the enum repetition earns little and the omission of 'reversed' reads as under-specification rather than deliberate brevity.
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?
The tool is simple and has no output schema, so little prose is strictly required. Still, an agent gets no signal about scope (global vs per-graph) or the purpose of the 'reversed' flag, which is the only non-obvious part of the operation.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description re-lists the enum values already present in the schema and completely omits the optional 'reversed' parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured data.
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+resource ('Set the result colormap'), which is unambiguous on its own. However it does not differentiate itself from the crowded result_* family (result_set_legend_range, result_set_active_dataset, etc.), so an agent must infer scope from the schema rather than the text.
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 guidance on when to call this versus the other result_set_* tools, nor any prerequisite (e.g. whether results must be loaded, or whether a dataset must be active first). The description only restates the operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.