Installs custom CSS and JavaScript styles for MarkdownPreview in Sublime Text by updating MarkdownPreview.sublime-settings to point to the package styles folder.
Wire Sublime Text MarkdownPreview to this package styles/ folder (CSS + Copy JS). Writes/updates Packages/User/MarkdownPreview.sublime-settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | If true, overwrite existing css/js entries in MarkdownPreview settings (default true). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool mutates a specific settings file rather than merely reading information. However, it does not explain how existing settings are handled beyond the schema's force parameter, whether the operation is reversible, or what 'CSS + Copy JS' fully entails.
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 concise sentences with the main purpose and side effect stated directly. Slightly informal phrasing ('Wire', 'Copy JS') costs some clarity, but there is no wasted content.
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 simple one-parameter tool with a full schema, the description is mostly adequate. Still, it omits when this should be run relative to sibling tools and does not clarify what happens on repeated invocations or whether any user action is needed afterward.
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%, and the only parameter (force) is already well documented in the schema with its default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a clear action ('Wire'), the target resource (MarkdownPreview settings pointing to the styles/ folder), and the concrete effect ('Writes/updates Packages/User/MarkdownPreview.sublime-settings'). It is specific enough to distinguish installation from the sibling style-related operations.
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 is given about when to run this tool rather than md_styles or md_preview, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The intended use is only implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.