Transition from graph overview to detail by moving the camera to a selected node and zooming into its subgraph.
사람 화면을 이 노드로 이동한다 ([5-D]) — overview → detail 전환.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | Yes | 초점을 맞출 노드. | |
| zoom_level | No | 상세 뷰 줌 힌트. M1 은 detail 뷰가 서브그래프를 자동 fit 하므로 조언값이며, 프로토콜([8-C] focus.set{id})은 바뀌지 않는다. |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It meaningfully discloses that zoom_level is only an advisory hint because the M1 detail view auto-fits the subgraph, and that the focus.set protocol remains unchanged. This goes beyond the bare action, though it does not mention any effect on selection history or view state.
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 core action is delivered in one front-loaded sentence, and the parameter descriptions are compact. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
For a simple two-parameter navigation tool, the description covers the action, the view transition, and the caveat on zoom_level; an output schema exists so return values need not be described. It is slightly incomplete in not clarifying prerequisites or error behavior for invalid node IDs.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that zoom_level is advisory and does not alter the underlying protocol, which is more semantic detail than the schema's 'detail view zoom hint' alone provides.
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 Korean description states a specific action: 'Moves the screen to this node' and adds the transition 'overview → detail'. This is clear and resource-specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling view-related tools such as get_focused_node or get_view_state.
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?
The overview→detail transition implies when the tool is appropriate (when the user wants to inspect a node in detail), but it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.