Render DOT source into SVG, PNG, or PDF diagrams, automatically partitioning oversized graphs into manageable 5x5 encapsulated clusters.
Write DOT and render it with automatic parent/inner 5x5 encapsulation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| engine | No | dot | |
| format | No | svg | |
| dot_path | No | diagram.dot | |
| dot_source | 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 already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the unexplained 'automatic parent/inner 5x5 encapsulation' behavior, but does not clarify file creation, output path handling, or side effects beyond the annotation profile. It provides some extra behavioral context without contradiction.
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 focused sentence with no filler or repeated title information. It is concise and front-loaded, though the '5x5 encapsulation' terminology is cryptic and would benefit from a brief explanation.
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 tool with six parameters and a non-obvious '5x5 encapsulation' feature, the description is too sparse to provide complete context. It does not explain what encapsulation means, where files are written, or how the required project_dir and dot_source relate to the output. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description alone leaves important behavioral and operational details ambiguous.
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 names none of the six parameters. Though parameter names and defaults are somewhat self-explanatory, dot_path, output_path, engine, and format are left entirely undocumented, so the description does not compensate for the schema 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?
The description identifies the action as writing and rendering DOT source, and adds a distinguishing 'automatic parent/inner 5x5 encapsuation' behavior. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from, but the mention of write-plus-render from DOT source communicates the tool's primary role clearly.
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 about when to choose this tool over graphviz_render or other siblings, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The agent must infer usage solely from the verb phrase, which is not enough for confident tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.