Generate WebGL fragment or vertex shaders with standalone pointer-reactive HTML for aurora, liquid-chrome, or ripple effects, including speed and accent color controls.
Generate a working original WebGL fragment/vertex shader and standalone pointer-reactive HTML.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| speed | No | ||
| accent | No | #78c6dc |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world). The description adds useful non-structured context by naming the return artifact type — both shader source and standalone pointer-reactive HTML — which is not captured anywhere else since there is no output schema. It stops short of describing determinism, output size, or how the 'original' generation behaves.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification for a parameterized generator, so the brevity trades away information rather than demonstrating economy.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by naming what is returned (shader + HTML). But for a three-parameter generator with zero schema descriptions and an enum-controlled output, the definition is under-specified on how parameters shape the result.
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% across three parameters, so the description carries the burden and adds nothing about them. The enum values ('aurora', 'liquid-chrome', 'ripple'), the speed range, and the accent hex format are only discoverable from the raw schema, not from the prose.
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 ('Generate') and a precise artifact ('WebGL fragment/vertex shader and standalone pointer-reactive HTML'), which is far more concrete than the name alone. It does not differentiate against any sibling, but no sibling in the set generates shaders, so the risk of confusion is low.
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 on when to reach for this tool versus alternatives (e.g. generate_scroll_scaffold or generate_palette for other generative tasks), and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.