sa_viewControl dock views in the current SAStudio4 mode: list available views, show a named view, or hide it by name.
List / show / hide the dock views of the current mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| on | No | true = show, false = hide | |
| name | No | Dock view name from the list (e.g. 'PvT Zoom', 'pulseDetectTable', 'Density', 'MappingTable'); blank = just list |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about side effects, permissions, whether hiding is persistent, or what happens when a name doesn't match. Show/hide are state mutations and that risk is undisclosed.
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?
A single compact sentence with the three supported operations front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight prose.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameters are fully covered by the schema. The remaining gap is behavioral and routing context, which the description does not supply for a state-mutating UI tool.
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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema (on: true=show/false=hide; name: blank = just list). The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 pairs specific verbs (list/show/hide) with a concrete resource (dock views of the current mode), so an agent understands the operation. It stops short of distinguishing itself from adjacent UI-manipulation siblings like sa_gui, sa_controls, or sa_menu, so it isn't 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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The agent must infer that this tool is the one for dock-view visibility rather than sa_gui or sa_controls, which is not stated anywhere.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.