Skip to main content
Glama

cnvs.app

by app.cnvs

Get Board

get_board

Full structured JSON state of a board: texts (id, x, y, content, color, width, postit, author), strokes (id, points, color, author), images (id, x, y, width, height, dataUrl, thumbDataUrl, author; heavy base64 >8 kB elided to dataUrl:null, tiny images inlined). Use this for EXACT ids/coordinates/content (needed for move, erase, editing a text by id). For visual layout (where is empty space? what overlaps?) call get_preview instead — it's much cheaper for spatial reasoning than a huge JSON dump.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
board_idYes
access_keyNo8-character lowercase alphanumeric board access key when the board is locked (legacy 6-character lowercase alphanumeric keys are also accepted). Equivalent to setting the `X-Board-Key` HTTP header on the JSON-RPC POST. Omit for unlocked boards. Obtain via POST /api/boards/<id>/lock.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds transparency beyond annotations by detailing the output behavior, such as eliding heavy base64 images to null and inlining tiny images. No side effects are mentioned, but annotations indicate non-destructive, which aligns with the description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well-structured, covering output contents, elision behavior, and usage guidance in a concise manner. It is not overly long and each sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description provides a fairly complete picture of the tool's purpose and output, including the alternative for visual layout. It lacks details on errors or authentication, but for a simple getter with no output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Access_key is well-described in the schema, but board_id lacks any description. The tool name and context make board_id obvious, yet schema description coverage is only 50%, and the main description does not explicitly explain it. The access_key description compensates partially, but board_id remains underdocumented.

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 returns the full structured JSON state of a board, listing the components (texts, strokes, images). It distinguishes from get_preview by specifying exact use cases.

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 provided: use this tool for exact ids/coordinates/content, and alternatively use get_preview for visual layout. This clearly indicates when to use and when not to use.

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

All cnvs.app 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: canvas items (text, image, stroke, link), kanban elements (tasks, columns, lanes), and board-level operations (create, open, preview). Even the two move tools are clearly separated: move for board items and move_task for kanban cards. Descriptions explicitly disambiguate potential overlaps (e.g., add_link vs add_text).

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_image, create_column, delete_task, update_task). Minor deviations: 'erase' and 'move' are single-word verbs lacking an explicit object, and 'move' could be confused with 'move_task' without descriptions. Overall the pattern is highly predictable.

Tool Count4/5

25 tools is at the high end but justified by the dual-mode scope (freeform whiteboard and kanban board). Each cluster has a coherent set covering create, read, update, delete, and specialized operations (bulk creation, export, querying, waiting for updates). Slightly heavy but well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows for both whiteboard and kanban are covered: CRUD for text, images, tasks, columns, plus preview, export, bulk creation, and filtering. Minor gaps exist: no board rename/delete, no image resize after creation, and no bulk erase, but these can be worked around.

Resources