find_jmp_figuresSearch JMP documentation figure captions to find dialog and report screenshots that match your description. Returns relevant figure details for visual reference.
Find documentation figures (JMP dialog and report screenshots) by caption.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| k | No | Max figures. | |
| query | Yes | What the figure should show. |
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that matching is done 'by caption' and that the tool is read-only in nature, but it does not describe matching semantics, ordering, or limits. This is adequate for a simple find tool but leaves some behavioral detail unstated.
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. The core action, resource type, and matching criterion are all front-loaded and immediately usable.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and full parameter schema coverage, the description covers what the agent needs for basic invocation. It could add usage guidance or matching behavior, but nothing essential is missing for selecting and calling the tool.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic context by specifying that the query should be a caption. This is more specific than the schema's 'What the figure should show' and helps the agent phrase the query correctly.
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 states a specific verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('documentation figures... by caption'), and clarifies the figure types as JMP dialog and report screenshots. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_jmp_docs, which target documentation text rather than figures.
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 implies the tool should be used when looking for JMP figures by caption, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The intended use is inferable but not directly contrasted with siblings such as search_jmp_docs or find_example.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.