Generate PNG plots from DFS and 1D result files, returning the image path. Optionally select an item and set output location.
把结果序列画成 PNG 图片，返回图片路径。支持 dfs 系列与 1D 结果。
Args: path: 结果文件绝对路径。 item: 条目名 / 量名 / 序号；不传则取第一项。 out_png: 输出 PNG 路径；不传则与结果文件同目录同名。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| out_png | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core side effect (creates a PNG file), the return value (image path), and default naming/location of the output. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, error conditions, or whether the input file is left untouched, which would improve transparency.
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?
The main purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact, structured Args list. Every sentence provides useful information and there is no filler.
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 plotting tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly: required path, optional parameters with defaults, and return value. It could mention overwrite or failure behavior, but those are minor for basic usage.
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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: path is an absolute result file path, item selects a named entry or index and defaults to the first item, and out_png defaults to a sibling of the result file. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 verb–resource pair: plot result sequences into a PNG image and return the image path. It also names supported input classes (dfs series and 1D results), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mz_dfs_read or mz_dfs_info.
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 intended use is clear from the description: whenever a result sequence needs to be visualized as a PNG. It states supported input types and default behaviors. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but there is no competing plotting tool among the siblings, so clear context suffices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.