Skip to main content
Glama

AgentPlaybooks

by ai.agentplaybooks

Write canvas document

write_canvas
DestructiveIdempotent

Create or fully replace a canvas document. Markdown headings are auto-parsed into sections for parallel editing. A replace overwrites prior content and cannot be undone. Requires canvas:write or full permission. Use patch_canvas_section for partial updates and lock_canvas_section before multi-agent edits. Pass playbook_id as the UUID or GUID of the playbook this call should target.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesDocument title
slugYesURL-friendly document identifier
run_idYesWorkflow run UUID
contentYesFull markdown content
metadataNoCustom document metadata
playbook_idYesUUID or GUID of the target playbook

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating 'A replace overwrites prior content and cannot be undone.' It adds unique context about auto-parsing markdown headings into sections and the permission requirement, which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key usage notes and alternatives. Every clause provides value without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a write operation with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage context, destructive behavior, and prerequisites. The lack of an output schema is fine, and the description sufficiently explains the tool's role in the canvas workflow.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal extra semantics, primarily noting that playbook_id is a UUID/GUID, which duplicates the schema. No additional parameter guidance is provided beyond what the schema already offers.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create or fully replace a canvas document.' It uses specific verbs (create/replace) and a specific resource (canvas document), and distinguishes itself by explicitly mentioning patch_canvas_section for partial updates.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use patch_canvas_section for partial updates and lock_canvas_section before multi-agent edits.' It also mentions permission requirements (requires canvas:write or full permission), which helps the agent decide when to call this tool.

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

All AgentPlaybooks toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct entity and action (e.g., delete_memory vs delete_skill vs delete_run), and even similar operations like read_memory vs search_memory vs get_memory_context have clearly differentiated purposes. The descriptions are detailed and explicitly cross-reference other tools to avoid confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, read_*, etc.), with plurals used uniformly for list operations (list_playbooks, list_runs, list_secrets). No mixed conventions or ambiguous verbs; the naming is highly predictable and systematic.

Tool Count4/5

With 48 tools, the server covers a broad but coherent set of domains (playbooks, personas, skills, memory, canvas, runs, secrets, MCP servers, and discovery). While this exceeds the typical 3-15 range, each tool serves a distinct and necessary function within the comprehensive playbook management scope, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface provides complete CRUD and lifecycle coverage for every entity type: playbooks, personas, skills (including versioning and rollback), memory (including hierarchical tasks and tiering), canvas (with locking and patching), runs, secrets (including rotation and usage), and MCP servers. Additionally, find_tools covers discovery for federated tools, leaving no apparent dead ends.

Resources