pbir_apply_themeApply a named theme preset (dark, light, corporate, blue-purple) to all visuals on a Power BI report page, with optional data color application.
Apply a named theme preset to all visuals on a page. Themes: dark, light, corporate, blue-purple.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| theme | Yes | ||
| pageId | No | Page ID. Auto-resolved when only one page exists. | |
| applyDataColors | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With only openWorldHint: false in annotations, the description adds value by specifying scope (all visuals on a page) and listing available themes. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits like overwrite behavior, undoability, or side effects, which would be expected for a mutation tool.
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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence clearly states purpose, the second lists themes. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and minimal annotations, the description should cover more aspects like what happens to existing formatting, how applyDataColors behaves, or prerequisites. It feels incomplete for a tool with three parameters and no return type.
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 only 33% (pageId has description). The description adds no further meaning for pageId or applyDataColors beyond the schema, and only repeats enum values for theme which is already defined. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.
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 clearly states the action (apply a named theme preset) and the scope (all visuals on a page), with an explicit list of theme options. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbir_set_report_theme which likely operate at the report level.
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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as pbir_set_report_theme or pbir_lookup_theme_property. The description lacks context for selection, and there are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use indications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.