Set or clear a glyph's Unicode value by name. Pass the glyph name and a hex codepoint like '0061' to assign, or an empty string to clear.
Set the unicode value of a glyph.
Args: glyph_name: Name of the glyph to update unicode_value: Hex unicode string e.g. "0061" for 'a'. Pass "" to clear.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| glyph_name | Yes | ||
| unicode_value | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the 'clear' behavior via empty string, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether the change is reversible, whether it affects other glyph data, or what the return value is. The description is adequate but not rich.
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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is efficient and provides necessary format details. No wasted words, though the structure could be slightly more formal.
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 simple 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential input semantics. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, or side effects, but for a straightforward setter this is a minor gap. The description is minimally viable.
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. It does add meaning by explaining the format of unicode_value (hex string, e.g. '0061' for 'a') and the clear behavior. However, it doesn't explain glyph_name beyond 'Name of the glyph to update', which is similar to the schema's 'Glyph Name'. The description partially compensates but not fully.
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 states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'unicode value of a glyph', which distinguishes it from siblings like set_glyph_width, set_glyph_color, and set_glyph_paths. It is concise and unambiguous, though it doesn't 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 implies usage by showing the exact argument format and the special case of passing "" to clear the unicode value. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_glyph_width or set_glyph_paths, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.