Converts a mindmap ID into mermaid, text, or JSON output for digestible viewing of execution plans and architectural models.
Render a mindmap in a digestible format: mermaid (flow chart syntax), text (indented outline), or json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | Yes | Output format | |
| mindmapId | Yes | Mindmap ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. 'Render' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and the format syntaxes are disclosed, but permissions, error behavior, and confirmation of no side effects are not stated.
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 with no filler, front-loading the action and resource before listing the formats. Every phrase earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the output formats. However, it lacks usage guidance against sibling tools and does not state read-only behavior explicitly, leaving minor gaps.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning to the format enum by explaining mermaid as flow chart syntax and text as an indented outline, though mindmapId remains only schema-described.
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 (render) and resource (mindmap), and names the three output formats. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like get_mindmap, so it stops short of 5.
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 phrase 'digestible format' hints at presentation use, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to get_mindmap/list_mindmaps. An agent gets no help deciding between render_mindmap and get_mindmap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.