Converts a Markdown file into an HTML document in the same folder, preserving the filename. Optionally overwrites an existing HTML file when overwrite is enabled.
Markdown(.md) 파일을 읽어 같은 폴더에 같은 이름의 .html로 렌더한다. 같은 이름의 HTML이 있으면 overwrite=True일 때만 덮어쓴다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| theme | No | ||
| overwrite | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the side effect of writing an HTML file and the overwrite condition (only when overwrite=True). However, it omits other behavioral details such as permissions, return behavior, or effects on the original file.
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 two concise sentences that front-load the core action and then add the important overwrite caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the core conversion and overwrite behavior but leaves theme semantics, return values, and tool selection context unaddressed.
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 needs to compensate for under-documented parameters. It adds meaning for overwrite by stating it controls overwriting existing HTML, but it does not clarify the path format or the allowed theme values, leaving those parameters ambiguous.
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 reads a Markdown file and renders it to an HTML file in the same folder with the same name. It is specific about verb, resource, and output, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling render_document.
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 about when to use render_file versus the sibling tools list_themes, get_starter, render_document, or publish_document. The overwrite behavior is explained, but it is parameter behavior, not usage selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.