Move/resize/relabel an element — DIRECT, live. element_id (preferred) or screen+label; x+y also places an unplaced one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| h | No | ||
| w | No | ||
| x | No | px on the screen's canvas | |
| y | No | ||
| note | No | "" clears | |
| type | No | e.g. button/bar/panel (optional) | |
| label | No | Current label | |
| screen | No | With label, if no element_id | |
| system | No | System it serves | |
| new_label | No | Rename (optional) | |
| element_id | No | From get_screen (preferred) | |
| project_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only include destructiveHint:false, so the description adds useful behavioral context: updates are DIRECT and live (immediate), and placing an unplaced element is covered. However, it does not disclose return values, permissions, or rollback behavior, which would be helpful.
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?
A single sentence front-loaded with action verbs and critical qualifiers ('DIRECT, live', 'preferred', 'also places'). Every phrase carries meaning, with zero filler.
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?
For a 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers core scenarios and identification strategy efficiently. It lacks explicit mention of project_id requirements or return shape, but schema property descriptions cover several parameters and the essential behaviors are conveyed.
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 67%, and the description compensates with key selection logic: element_id preferred, screen+label fallback, and x+y special placement behavior. It does not fully explain h/w/y semantics, but the verbs 'move/resize' and placement hint imply their roles.
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 uses specific verbs 'move/resize/relabel' and clearly identifies the resource 'element'. The 'DIRECT, live' qualifier distinguishes it from proposal-based tools like propose_element, making its purpose unmistakable.
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?
It provides clear usage context: element_id is preferred over screen+label, and x+y can place an unplaced element. It implies immediate/direct use but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose, with explicit distinctions between direct actions and proposals via Inbox. The verbs and object types (system, milestone, screen, element, balance) are unique enough that no two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_system, propose_screen, update_element). Minor deviations like 'dedupe', 'search', 'next_task', and 'reorder' are single words or non-verb but remain readable and stylistically compatible.
With 54 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical MCP scope, hitting the 'extreme mismatch' threshold. Even for a complex domain, the sheer number will overwhelm agents and degrade selection performance.
The tool surface is remarkably complete, covering full lifecycle operations for all major entities, plus import, design generation, drift detection, status reporting, inbox handling, and rejection workflows. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.