Trigger figure extraction for a saved article in your vault by passing its note path. Use when you need figures pulled from an existing markdown note.
Manually trigger figure extraction for a saved article.
Args: note_path: Relative path within vault, e.g. '30-resources/my-article.md'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 burden. It discloses only that the trigger is manual; it does not say whether extraction writes new files, overwrites existing figures, requires network/LLM access, or has cost/rate implications. For a mutation-style trigger with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
Two short lines, front-loaded with the action and then the one argument with an example. The 'Args:' block is somewhat boilerplate but earns its place by supplying the path format.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter's format is covered. What remains missing is any behavioral context for a side-effecting trigger (side effects, permissions, failure modes), leaving the definition only minimally complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains note_path is a relative path within the vault and gives a concrete example ('30-resources/my-article.md'). That is meaningful semantics beyond the bare string type, though it does not state behavior for missing files or wrong paths.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('trigger figure extraction') scoped to 'a saved article.' The word 'Manually' implies a contrast with automatic extraction, which helps, but it does not name or distinguish itself from figure-related siblings such as reconcile_figures or backfill_figure_text.
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?
'Manually trigger' implies the tool is used when automatic extraction did not occur, which is implied usage guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over reconcile_figures, backfill_figure_text, or restore_missing_pdf_images, nor any precondition or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.