figure_library_review_openOpen a read-only review of scientific figure templates, inspecting working, published, history, diff, and review findings for a given template ID.
Host-neutral read-only inspection of Working, Published, history, Diff, and Review findings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| templateId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'host-neutral' and enumerates the inspection scope (Working, Published, history, Diff, Review findings), which provides context beyond the annotations. It aligns with the read-only nature and gives a fuller picture of what the tool covers, though it doesn't describe return format or behavior in detail.
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?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the key qualifiers 'host-neutral' and 'read-only', and efficiently enumerates the inspection targets. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information, and every word adds value.
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 a simple single-optional-param tool, no output schema, and good annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It conveys the scope of inspection but doesn't clarify what the result will look like or how the multifaceted information is presented. Given the many sibling tools, it might benefit from stating that it provides a combined view, but it doesn't, leaving some ambiguity.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the templateId parameter at all. The parameter's name is self-explanatory, but the description offers no additional meaning about how it is used, constraints, or interaction with the tool's behavior. Since coverage is zero, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Host-neutral read-only inspection of Working, Published, history, Diff, and Review findings.' It uses a specific verb (inspect), identifies the resource (template review state), and lists the specific aspects covered. This differentiates it from siblings like template_history or diff_revisions by being a comprehensive inspection tool.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states it is a read-only inspection without mentioning when it should be preferred over more specific sibling tools (e.g., figure_library_template_history, figure_library_diff_revisions). There is no indication of exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent without clear decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.