Apply a colorblind-safe theme, backfill missing alt text, and re-audit WCAG compliance in Power BI reports.
Apply a colorblind-safe theme + backfill alt text + re-audit WCAG.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| palette | No | okabe_ito | |
| pbip_path | Yes | ||
| alt_text_template | No | {visual_type} visualizing measure {first_measure} | |
| auto_backfill_alt_text | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the three main effects—theme application, alt-text backfill, and WCAG re-audit—but it does not say whether existing themes or alt text are overwritten, whether changes are persisted in place, or what happens as a result of the re-audit.
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 description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the main action and decomposes the operation into three clear parts. It is efficient and scannable, though the heavy use of '+' reads more like a label than a fully structured explanation.
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 four parameters, zero annotations, and no parameter-level documentation, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence. It omits prerequisites, side effects, and any indication of what the WCAG re-audit returns or writes back, even though an output schema exists.
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% and the description does not explain the parameters. It loosely connects 'theme' to palette and 'alt text' to alt_text_template/auto_backfill_alt_text, but it never explains allowed palette values, how the template is evaluated, or the effect of setting auto_backfill_alt_text to false.
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 names a specific multi-step operation: applying a colorblind-safe theme, backfilling alt text, and re-auditing WCAG. This makes the tool's purpose understandable and distinguishes it from siblings like edit_report_visual or audit_report_ux_and_storytelling, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites like required report state, and no indication of whether it should run before or after other audit/theme tools. The description states what the tool does but not the conditions under which an agent should select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.