Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pbi-webview2

pbi-webview2

by bibiibjorn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

pbi_visuals

Retrieve a list of all visible visuals on the active Power BI page, including title, type, position, size, and error status.

Instructions

List every visible visual on the active page as [{title, type, x, y, width, height, hasError}]. type is a class-token heuristic (barChart, slicer, card, tableEx, pivotTable, donutChart, …; null when unknown); title from the container/descendant aria-label or .visualTitle; hasError reuses the broken-visual scan. Coordinates are getBoundingClientRect() rounded. Read-only.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pbi_visuals"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits: it explains the heuristic for 'type', the sources for 'title', the rounding of coordinates, and the reuse of the broken-visual scan for 'hasError'. It also declares the tool as 'Read-only', which is crucial since no annotations are provided.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the output format, and efficiently explains each field. No superfluous information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Despite lacking output schema, the description thoroughly explains the output format and each field, covering edge cases like null type. It could mention behavior on empty pages or error states, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a parameterless tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The tool has no parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description provides no parameter information, but baseline is 3 as per rules for high schema coverage. The description focuses on output, which is not part of this dimension.

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?

The description explicitly states the tool lists every visible visual on the active page with a detailed output format including all fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pbi_snapshot or pbi_read_cards, which have different purposes.

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 clearly states what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. Usage is implied from the output description, but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are given.

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