Render a notebook page as PNG to read handwriting and drawings, with optional tape reveal for hidden content.
Render a page (1-based) as PNG so you can read the handwriting and drawings.
scale 0.9 gives ~980px wide; use 1.5+ to zoom into small writing. Covered tapes are drawn
striped as on the iPad; reveal_tapes=True outlines them so the hidden content shows.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| scale | No | ||
| background | No | ||
| reveal_tapes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: covered tapes render striped as on the iPad, and reveal_tapes=True outlines them so hidden content shows. It omits whether rendering is read-only/side-effect free and what the returned payload looks like.
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?
Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by only practical rendering tips. Every clause (scale values, tape rendering, reveal behavior) earns its place with no filler.
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 5-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers rendering semantics and two behavioral edge cases well. Gaps remain around the meaning of `path` (notebook path vs. file path) and what `background` toggles, which an agent would still have to guess.
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, and it does for three of five params: page is 1-based, scale has concrete pixel implications, and reveal_tapes has an explicit visual effect. The required `path` and the `background` toggle are left completely undefined, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Render a page ... as PNG") plus the downstream purpose (read handwriting and drawings) and the 1-based indexing convention. The whole-page scope implicitly separates it from render_region, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Provides in-context guidance on scale (0.9 gives ~980px wide; 1.5+ to zoom into small writing), which is genuinely actionable. However, it never says when to prefer this over render_region, page_ink, or page_layout, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.