Change the graph layout in the detailed view by selecting an algorithm (dagre, concentric, fcose, grid, or preset) and passing optional coordinates for preset layouts.
상세(cytoscape) 뷰의 레이아웃을 바꾼다 ([5-D], [7-B] 탭 enum 동일).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| options | No | 알고리즘 옵션 (preset 은 노드 좌표를 여기로 전달). | |
| algorithm | Yes | 레이아웃 알고리즘 (탭 목록과 동일 enum). |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'changes layout' without mentioning whether the operation is reversible, what side effects occur on node positions, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It states the purpose first and adds the enum context efficiently. Every word earns its place.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is too thin for a mutation tool with no annotations. It lacks guidance on when to use the tool, behavioral details, and any potential side effects. An agent would need additional information to call it confidently in varied contexts.
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 both parameters are documented. The description adds valuable context by noting that the 'preset' algorithm passes node coordinates via the options parameter, and that the enum matches tab names. This enriches the schema's raw definitions.
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 states a clear purpose: changing the layout of the detailed cytoscape view. It is specific about the resource (layout) and the action (change), and the note about enum alignment with tabs adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though none appear to share this exact purpose.
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 description gives only a hint that the enum matches specific tabs, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. An agent is left to infer that this is for layout changes, which is obvious, but there is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.