Explains Shiny reactivity topics using official documentation and optional static source checks, helping users understand concepts and diagnose source-level issues without executing code.
Explain a Shiny topic with official docs and optional static source checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | ||
| source | No | ||
| question | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is grounded in official docs and can include static source checks — useful context — but does not say what the static checks inspect, what happens if source is passed, or any fetch/rate-limit behavior implied by openWorldHint.
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 tight sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing routing guidance.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with 0% schema coverage the description should explain the two required parameters and the topic enum, and it should route against the three nearby Shiny/R siblings. None of that is present.
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% for all three parameters: the topic enum values (reactivity, isolation, modules, async, basics) are undocumented, and neither question nor source is explained. The phrase 'optional static source checks' faintly hints at what source is for, which is the only semantic value added.
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 verb 'explain' plus 'Shiny topic' and the mechanism ('official docs', 'optional static source checks') give a workable purpose, but in a sibling set containing get_shiny_docs, analyze_shiny_app and analyze_r_workspace the description never distinguishes itself from those. An agent cannot tell from this text why it should pick this tool over get_shiny_docs.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus get_shiny_docs (plain doc lookup) or analyze_shiny_app (code analysis). The word 'optional' implies source checks are conditional, but the condition is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.