Summarize supplied layout JSON by listing node types only, so you can inspect structure without exposing layout content or settings.
Summarize supplied JSON node types; never return layout content or settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layout_json | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds an output-scope constraint ('never return layout content or settings'), but with no output schema it still doesn't say what the summary actually contains (counts, node type names, structure).
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?
A single tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and the negative constraint second; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for the information an agent needs, but that is a completeness issue rather than verbosity.
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 one-parameter, read-only summarizer, the description covers the basic deal ('summarizes node types, returns no content/settings'). However the sole parameter is undocumented and no output schema exists, so an agent must guess the accepted input shape and what a summary looks like.
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?
There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage: layout_json has no description in the schema. The description only implies the input is JSON of nodes, giving no format, encoding, or expected YOOtheme layout structure, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 concrete verb (summarize) and resource (JSON node types of the supplied layout JSON), which is enough to separate it from the sibling list/ping tools that operate on sites and pages. It does not name an alternative or explicitly tie the input to YOOtheme layout JSON, so the resource is slightly underspecified.
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 says nothing about when to reach for this tool versus inspecting a layout another way, nor about prerequisites such as needing a layout JSON string obtained from list_pages. Only the operation itself is described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.