Skip to main content
Glama

cnvs.app

by app.cnvs

Move Item

move

Reposition an existing item to a new (x, y) without retyping its content. Works for every item kind: text and link set the top-left to (x, y); line translates every point so the stroke's bounding box top-left lands at (x, y); image sets the top-left like text. kind defaults to text for backward compat with older callers. Find the id + kind via get_board. Prefer move over re-creating an item when only the location changes — it preserves the id, content, author and avoids a round-trip of base64 bytes for images.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xYes
yYes
idYes
kindNoItem kind. Defaults to `text`.
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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description explains how each item kind is repositioned (top-left vs bounding box), which is key behavioral detail. It also notes the default kind for backward compatibility. With annotations indicating mutation (readOnly false), the description adds value beyond the structure.

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?

Concise, well-structured, front-loaded with action, and includes a usage tip. No redundant information.

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?

Given the complexity of coordinate handling per item type)Skip the description covers all essential aspects and provides enough context for an agent to invoke correctly. Minor gap: no mention of units or coordinate system, but that's likely domain-specific.

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 coverage is only 33% (only kind and access_key have descriptions). The description compensates by explaining kind behaviors and how to find id/kind via get_board, but leaves x/y semantics implicit. Since x/y are probably self-evident, this is acceptable but could be improved.

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 opens with a specific action ('Reposition an existing item') and clearly states the benefit (without retyping content). It distinguishes from alternatives like re-creating an item, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

States precisely when to use this tool ('Prefer move over re-creating an item when only the location changes') and tells the agent to find the id/kind via get_board. This is a clear, actionable guideline that contrasts with sibling tools like add_image or add_text.

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