Render DOT graphs to images, automatically creating parent and inner images for diagrams exceeding the 5x5 limit.
Render DOT, automatically creating parent/inner images above the 5x5 limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| engine | No | dot | |
| format | No | svg | |
| dot_path | Yes | ||
| output_path | No | ||
| project_dir | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a concrete side effect: it creates parent and inner images above the 5x5 limit. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, although it does not explain where files are written or what gets overwritten.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. However, '5x5 limit' and 'parent/inner images' are unexplained jargon that undercut the clarity, so brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.
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 five-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, this is too thin. It lacks the meaning of project_dir and output_path, the role of engine/format, and the behavior around the 5x5 limit. The output schema may cover return values, but invocation-level knowledge is incomplete.
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%, and the description explains none of the five parameters. project_dir, dot_path, engine, format, and output_path are all left uninterpreted, so the agent cannot infer valid values or required relationships from the description.
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 clear verb/resource pair: 'Render DOT'. The mention of automatically creating parent/inner images adds specificity, but it does not clearly distinguish this tool from graphviz_render_source or explain the '5x5 limit' enough for a confident 5.
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 for when to use graphviz_render versus siblings like graphviz_render_source, graphviz_validate, graphviz_sync, or graphviz_publish_markdown. The '5x5 limit' implies a special scenario, but it is not framed as a selection criterion or contrasted with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.