Render a bounded diagram hierarchy from Graphviz sources and optionally update its associated Markdown block.
Render a bounded diagram hierarchy and optionally refresh its root Markdown block.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dot_path | Yes | ||
| project_dir | Yes | ||
| markdown_path | No |
| 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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's additional mention of refreshing a Markdown block adds context about a possible side effect. However, it does not explain what 'refresh' entails, whether files are written, or how the hierarchy is bounded, leaving behavioral details under-specified.
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. Every phrase adds meaning, and the primary action is stated first, followed by the optional secondary behavior.
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 three parameters, no schema descriptions, and a non-trivial 'sync' action, the description is too terse. It leaves unresolved what 'bounded diagram hierarchy' means, how parameters map to the operation, and when the Markdown refresh occurs. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing invocation guidance.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely suggests the optional markdown_path via 'optionally refresh its root Markdown block.' It does not clarify the distinct roles of project_dir and dot_path or their relationship, leaving agents to guess parameter semantics.
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 clearly identifies a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('a bounded diagram hierarchy'), and adds the distinguishing behavior of optionally refreshing a root Markdown block. This separates it from generic render tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus graphviz_render, graphviz_render_source, or graphviz_publish_markdown. The phrase 'optionally refresh' hints at a use case, but there is no clear context, prerequisite, or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.