Render an interactive pipeline dashboard inline to view DAG node states and test-harness metrics from a state file, or sample data when none is configured.
Render the interactive pipeline dashboard inline in the host. Shows DAG node states and test-harness metrics from the configured state file, or built-in sample data when no state file is configured.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | No | View mode. | full |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it renders inline in the host, reads from a configured state file, and falls back to built-in sample data when none is configured. This fallback disclosure is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.
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 tightly written sentences with the action verb front-loaded and zero redundant content. Every clause earns its place by adding either the render target or the data-source behavior.
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 read-only, single-optional-parameter dashboard tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, render location, and data sourcing. Annotations handle the safety profile. Only the absence of any sibling-routing guidance keeps it from being fully complete.
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 single 'view' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its enum and default. The description adds no information about the view mode, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Render') plus a specific resource ('interactive pipeline dashboard inline in the host') and even names the data source (configured state file or built-in sample data). This is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_status or trigger_action, so it falls 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?
The phrase 'inline in the host' implies this is a visual rendering tool rather than a data-fetching tool, which hints at when to use it over get_status. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated alternatives, and no exclusions, so the guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.