geo-figure-mcp

set_style

Save school-form-compliant font, text size, and figure width settings as defaults so future HWPX/PPTX exam outputs use consistent styling.

Instructions

학교 양식에 맞춘 글꼴·크기·그림 폭을 저장한다(다음부터 기본값).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "set_style"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`font`	No	한글(HWPX) 그림 글꼴(기본 함초롬돋움)
`size`	No	기본 글자 크기 pt(기본 8)
`small`	No	작은 글자 pt(기본 7)
`width`	No	그림 기본 폭 mm(기본 82.5 = 2단 시험지 한 단)
`fontPptx`	No	PowerPoint 그림 글꼴(기본 맑은 고딕)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavior that values persist as defaults for subsequent operations, which is real value beyond the schema. However, it is silent on persistence scope (session vs. stored), whether omitted parameters retain or reset existing defaults, and whether prior settings can be restored.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the action and its persistence effect front-loaded; every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter, zero-required configuration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core intent but leaves open how partial calls behave and what the effect scope of the saved defaults is. Adequate to select the tool, thin for invoking it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including their default values and units. The description mentions font, size, and figure width but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, and does not address the small/fontPptx parameters or partial-update semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (저장한다) and specific resources (글꼴·크기·그림 폭) tied to a school-format goal, so an agent knows this persists formatting settings. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like make_figures, which is the natural consumer of these defaults, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical '(다음부터 기본값)' implies this is meant to be called before figure generation so later calls inherit the settings, but the when-to-use relationship to make_figures is only implied, never stated. No when-not conditions or alternatives are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server