Adds a text note at a specific (x, y) position on the live graph, helping you attach AI-generated insights to relevant points for later reference.
화면 (x, y) 에 텍스트 메모를 띄운다 ([5-D]).
text 는 AI 가 쓴 것이라 프론트에서 이스케이프되어 렌더된다([11]).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| ttl | No | ||
| text | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the text is AI-written and escaped on the frontend, which is important for safety expectations. However, it does not mention persistence, whether the annotation is stored, how ttl affects behavior, or any side effects such as interactions with undo/redo.
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 short and front-loaded, with the main function stated first. However, the bracketed references ([5-D], [11]) are cryptic and provide no actionable guidance. The second sentence adds useful behavioral context, but the overall structure is somewhat under-specified rather than tightly informative.
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?
This is a mutation-style tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, so the description needs to provide more operational context. It explains the display behavior and escaping, but omits how the annotation can be removed, how it interacts with undo/redo and clear operations, and what ttl means. An agent would have to guess important invocation details.
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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter explanations. It partially clarifies that x/y are screen coordinates and text is rendered escaped, but it does not explain ttl at all. The parameter semantics are therefore incomplete, especially for ttl, whose default and minimum values are present in the schema but whose meaning is left unexplained.
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 tool's primary action: displaying a text memo at screen coordinates (x, y). The verb and resource are specific enough to understand the tool's function, and the coordinate emphasis distinguishes it from simple content-adding tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related sibling tools like record_finding or cite.
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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as record_finding, update_finding, or cite. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.