Identify available IR targets for generating Mermaid diagrams, or specify a target to view its fields and example.
List supported IR targets, or pass target to get that target's IR fields and example.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already convey readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the conditional behavior of the optional target parameter and what the caller gets in each mode: supported targets, or fields and an example for a specific target.
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 covers both tool modes with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the optional parameter behavior is appended naturally and economically.
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 read-only, one-optional-parameter tool, the description covers the two relevant call shapes and their expected outputs. It could mention error behavior for an invalid target, but the agent can list supported targets first, so no critical information is missing.
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?
The schema gives no description for the target parameter (0% coverage), but the description explains its semantic effect: omitting it lists all targets, while supplying it switches to detail mode for that target. It doesn't enumerate valid target values, but 'supported' implies they are discoverable from the list output.
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 uses a specific action, 'List supported IR targets', and then clarifies an optional second mode: passing a target returns that target's IR fields and example. This clearly distinguishes it from the siblings from_ir and render, which are about conversion and rendering rather than target listing/inspection.
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 gives clear conditional guidance: call with no argument to list all targets, or pass a target to get its IR fields and example. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to from_ir/render, but the two usage modes are unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.