entry-offline-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

entry_set_coding_mode

Switch an Entry project's coding view between block and Python modes; the code stays the same, but Python mode does not support some blocks such as value-returning or local-variable functions.

Instructions

엔트리 화면의 코딩 모드 전환: 'block'(블록코딩) | 'python'(엔트리파이썬 텍스트 편집 화면). 코드 자체는 동일하며 표시 방식만 바뀝니다. 파이썬 모드는 일부 블록(값 반환 함수, 지역변수 함수 등)을 지원하지 않습니다.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "mode": "<mode>"
    },
    "name": "entry_set_coding_mode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the code is unchanged and only the display changes, plus a capability gap in python mode. It does not say whether a project must be loaded/running first, whether the switch is reversible, or whether unsupported blocks are silently dropped or merely hidden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the accepted values, then the invariant (code identical), then the caveat. Nothing is redundant or padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter mode switch with no output schema, the definition covers both values and the main functional limitation. The only gaps are preconditions and any state side effects, which are relatively minor for a display-mode toggle.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter's enum values are both explained in the description ('block' = block coding, 'python' = Entry Python text editing screen), which is more than the bare enum names in the schema provide. Semantic coverage of the only parameter is effectively complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('엔트리 화면의 코딩 모드 전환') and enumerates the two mode values with their meanings, so the agent knows exactly what changes. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool, but the scope is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a concrete selection criterion: python mode does not support certain blocks (value-returning functions, local variable functions), which tells the agent when python mode is inappropriate. There is no explicit 'use X instead' routing to a sibling, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.