Retrieve a visual style's rules, elements to keep or swap, and target frame by name, alias, or menu number before editing a page.
One look in full: the rules that make it that look, what to keep and swap, and its target frame. Takes a name, alias or menu number. Read this before editing a page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| style | Yes | Name, alias or menu number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating lookup, so the description's added value is its sketch of what comes back: the rules, keep/swap guidance, and a target frame. That is genuinely beyond the annotations, but it is described obliquely and omits behavior for an unknown style name or how the frame/spec is structured.
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 tight sentences with the capability statement first and the usage cue last; nothing is redundant. It loses a point because the compressed, metaphor-heavy wording ('One look in full', 'keep and swap') costs clarity without saving many tokens.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition should sketch the response shape. It gestures at the content (rules, substitution guidance, target frame) but never says how that is structured, and it omits failure behavior, leaving the agent partially informed.
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 parameter is already documented as 'Name, alias or menu number'. The description merely restates 'Takes a name, alias or menu number', adding no new semantic detail such as format expectations or case sensitivity. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.
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 conveys retrieval of a style's full definition, but does so in stylized phrasing ('One look in full', 'what to keep and swap', 'target frame') rather than a plain verb+resource statement. An agent can guess it fetches style rules and a frame spec, but the vocabulary is idiosyncratic and it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling list_styles.
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?
It gives one real usage condition: 'Read this before editing a page.' That is useful routing toward a pre-edit read. However, it says nothing about using list_styles to discover valid names/aliases/menu numbers, nor when this tool should be skipped in favor of another sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.