Creates a new validated Power BI project copy with three KPI cards, a chart, and a slicer without changing the source. Run inspect_project first.
Add three KPI cards, a chart and a slicer in a new validated copy. Use inspect_project first; the source is not changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| page | Yes | ||
| cards | Yes | ||
| chart | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| slicer | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| category | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is partly structured. The description adds two genuinely useful facts: the output is a new validated copy and the source is not changed, confirming the write is isolated. It does not disclose what 'validated' entails or what happens if validation fails.
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 tight sentences with zero filler and the action front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. The phrasing 'in a new validated copy' is compressed to the point of ambiguity about what is being copied.
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?
Eight required parameters, nested objects, no schema descriptions and no output schema make this a high-complexity call. The description maps no parameter meaning and gives no hint about the source project identifier or how category/value relate to the cards, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid call from the description alone.
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% across 8 required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely does not meet it. It hints at cards (exactly three), chart, slicer and a new copy, but never explains source, page, category or value, nor the table/name pairing structure required by every object parameter.
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 concrete composition action: adding three KPI cards, a chart and a slicer into a new validated copy. The artifacts are specific enough to distinguish it from validate_report and edit_layout, though 'copy' of what (a project/report) is only implied by the sibling inspect_project.
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?
'Use inspect_project first' gives an explicit ordered prerequisite and names a sibling tool, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over create_retail_demo or edit_layout, so it is clear context without full alternative/exclusion coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.