Generate a visual diagram of a BST or AVL tree structure to inspect node arrangement, hierarchy, and balance after insertions or deletions.
Get a visual representation of the tree structure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| treeType | Yes | The type of tree to print |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') and discloses the return is a visual representation of the structure, which is useful. However, it does not confirm non-destructiveness or describe output format beyond the vague 'visual representation'.
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 efficient sentence with no filler and the core purpose front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is minimal enough that brevity borders on under-specification.
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 simple one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any guidance on usage relative to siblings, which is the main gap.
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 100% and the treeType enum (bst/avl) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Get a visual representation') and resource ('the tree structure'), making the operation clear. It does not, however, differentiate from siblings like search_node or how the visual output differs from other query tools.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_node or the mutation siblings. The agent is left to infer that this is a read-only inspection tool purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.