create-board-toolCreate a new Blipboard split-flap display board. Returns the display URL (open it on any screen — that IS the board, safe to share) and a secret pushToken used to push content later. No account needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Human-readable board name, e.g. "Living Room". | |
| layoutId | No | Board grid: wide-frame = 6 rows x 22 columns, triptych-15 = 3 x 15, ticker-6 = 1 x 6. Immutable after creation. | wide-frame |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that no account is needed, the board is safe to share, the pushToken is secret, and the layoutId is immutable after creation. It does not mention potential errors or idempotency, but the core traits are covered.
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 sentences, each carrying significant information: action, return values, safety, and immutability. No fluff or redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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?
Given the simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs: creation, return values, no account requirement, layout immutability, and the hint to use push-scenes-tool later. Complete for the tool's context.
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 baseline 3 applies. The description does not add parameter details beyond what the schema provides (name and layoutId descriptions are already clear), but it provides helpful context (e.g., 'no account needed') that is not parameter-specific.
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 it creates a new Blipboard split-flap display board, specifies the return values (display URL and secret pushToken), and distinguishes from sibling tools (delete, push, read, update). The verb 'create' and resource 'board' are specific.
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 implies when to use (for creating a board to later push content) and notes that no account is needed. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the purpose is clear and it hints at the next step (using push-scenes-tool).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation on Blipboard boards: create, delete, push scenes, read, and update. No overlap in functionality, agents can easily differentiate.
All tools follow a consistent 'verb-board-tool' pattern (e.g., create-board-tool, push-scenes-tool), with verbs in imperative form and clear noun references.
With 5 tools, the server covers the core actions needed for managing split-flap display boards without unnecessary duplication or missing essentials.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: create board, read its state, push scenes, update style, and delete. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.