Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vilsem-mcp

vilsem-mcp

by bcsnpc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

commit_visual

Adds one Vilsem Renderer visual to an existing PBIR page using @vilsem/core, refusing duplicate visual names and only updating missing renderer resources and registration.

Instructions

Add one Vilsem Renderer visual to one existing PBIR page using @vilsem/core. Existing visual names are refused; the only additional changes are missing renderer resources and registration. Native visuals, slicers, bookmarks, filters, themes and model objects are not edited. If Desktop is open, accept its external-change reload prompt after this call.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
specYes
layoutYes
bindingsYes
pageNameYes
reportDirYes
visualNameYes
connectionIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / bindings / properties / measures / maxItems
      Previous value: -3New value: +6
    • addedInput schema / properties / connectionId
      Added value: +{
+  "format": "uuid",
+  "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the refusal of duplicate visual names, limits collateral changes to missing renderer resources and registration, and enumerates what is left untouched (native visuals, slicers, bookmarks, filters, themes, model objects). It also warns about the Desktop external-change reload prompt. It does not cover failure/rollback behavior if the write partially fails.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by constraints and side effects in a logical order. The '@vilsem/core' package reference adds little for an agent but costs only a few words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the side-effect and safety disclosure is strong, but the description leaves the most complex inputs (spec, bindings with its 1-6 measure limit, layout) entirely unexplained. An agent knows what the tool will and won't change but not how to construct the payload.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters including nested spec, bindings, and layout structures. The description only obliquely hints at pageName and visualName ('one existing PBIR page', 'existing visual names are refused') and says nothing about spec, bindings, layout, reportDir, or the optional connectionId. This leaves the agent dependent on bare schema property names for the hardest inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add one Vilsem Renderer visual to one existing PBIR page using @vilsem/core') with explicit cardinality and target scope. This clearly separates it from siblings like update_visual, preview_visual, and validate_visuals.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by constraining to one existing page and refusing existing visual names, which tells the agent this is a create-only path. However it never names alternatives such as preview_visual or validate_visuals, and does not say whether validation should precede the commit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools