matic_mapRender a 1024x1024 PNG floor plan of a robot vacuum's area, including room names, robot position, and the active route when available.
A 1024x1024 PNG of the floor plan with room names, the robot's position and, while a run is active, its route.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| route | No | Draw the current route when a run is active. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral detail: the output format and dimensions, and the conditional rule that the route only appears when a run is active. It does not say how the image is delivered (inline/base64 vs URL), which is the remaining gap.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the deliverable (PNG + dimensions), then the contents. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well by enumerating what the image contains and when the route layer appears. Minor omissions are how the image is returned and whether the map is cached or regenerated per call.
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 100% and the single 'route' parameter is already documented as 'Draw the current route when a run is active.' The description restates the same conditional rather than adding new syntax or defaults, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a concrete deliverable: a 1024x1024 PNG floor plan containing room names, the robot's position and its route. That is a specific resource and is distinguishable from siblings like matic_rooms (room data) and matic_status (state), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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 reach for this tool versus matic_status or matic_rooms, and no preconditions or alternatives are named. The only conditional phrasing ('while a run is active') describes output content, not usage selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.