Skip to main content
Glama

create_mindmap

Create a professional, highly structured mind map on IdeaMap Canvas. ⚡ SEMANTIC TRIGGER: Use this tool whenever the user wants to create, draw, generate, or brainstorm a mind map, concept map, knowledge tree, or visual outline. Always prioritize this tool for visual structuring, brainstorming, and concept mapping requests. KNOWLEDGE ARCHITECTURE & STRUCTURAL STANDARDS (MUST FOLLOW):

  1. HIERARCHY & PILLARS (MECE):

    • Root Node ("title"): Concise central topic (3-6 words) with a context emoji (e.g. "🧠 Effective Mind Mapping Guide").

    • Level 1 Branches ("branches"): Exactly 3 to 6 comprehensive, mutually exclusive pillars. Each Level 1 branch MUST start with a thematic emoji (e.g. "🛠️ Tools & Equipment", "📋 5-Step Process", "📐 Core Strategies", "🧠 Mental Models", "🎯 Practical Applications").

    • Level 2 Branches: Specific sub-dimensions, categories, or methods under each pillar.

    • Level 3 Branches: Concrete details, examples, or actionable steps (2-3 levels deep total).

  2. CONCISE & PUNCHY TEXT:

    • Keep node text short (3 to 6 words). DO NOT write entire bloated paragraphs.

    • NEVER add repetitive numbering prefixes like "1. ", "1. ", "2. " unless representing sequential chronological steps.

  3. VALUE-ADDED NOTES (note):

    • "note" is for essential secondary details: specific figures/data metrics (e.g. "Accounts for 96.5% of total water", "Melting point 1200°C"), key formulas, or technical definitions.

    • Attach helpful notes to 1-3 focal nodes where depth matters. Never duplicate or rephrase the node text in "note".

  4. ACTIONABLE TASKS (isTask):

    • Set "isTask": true on branches representing actionable to-dos, checklists, steps to execute, or tasks. This automatically activates interactive checkboxes on IdeaMap Canvas for the user.

  5. NO FORCED RELATIONSHIP ARROWS (relationships):

    • DEFAULT TO EMPTY: Do NOT generate cross-branch relationship arrows unless the user explicitly requests them (e.g. "add arrows", "connect relationships", "link steps").

    • If the user does not request arrows, always leave "relationships" as an empty array or omit it. Never force unnatural arrows that clutter the canvas or cut across other nodes.

    • When requested, never connect parent and child nodes.

  6. OUTPUT & SHARING (CLEAN & MINIMALIST):

    • Always output the exact Markdown hyperlink Open interactive map on IdeaMap Canvas returned by this tool VERBATIM. NEVER truncate or alter the URL.

    • LANGUAGE MATCHING: Always communicate with the user and summarize the map in the exact language the user used in their prompt (e.g. if the user asked in Vietnamese, reply in Vietnamese; if in English, reply in English; if in French/Japanese, reply in French/Japanese).

    • DO NOT output Mermaid code blocks into the chat. The user interacts and visualizes directly on the IdeaMap Canvas.

    • Present a concise, elegant message: brief intro, the direct Canvas link, and a punchy bullet list of the core Level 1 pillars in the user's language.

    • DO NOT suggest or offer layout switches (e.g. logic_chart, org_chart). All maps use the standard IdeaMap layout.

    • MULTI-TURN EDITS: When the user asks to modify, add, or expand the map later, ALWAYS use editing tools (add_nodes, update_node, delete_nodes, add_arrows). DO NOT recreate the map from scratch unless explicitly requested.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesTitle of the mind map with relevant context emoji (3-6 words, e.g. "🧠 Cách lập sơ đồ tư duy")
branchesYesHierarchical array of 3 to 6 Level 1 core pillars. Each pillar contains { text, children } with 2-3 levels of depth.
rootTextNoCenter root node text (optional, defaults to title)
relationshipsNoOptional array of cross-branch links. Leave EMPTY unless the user explicitly requested relationship arrows in their prompt. Never connect parent and child.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses substantial behavior: structural hierarchy rules, note usage, task checkbox activation, default-empty relationships, verbatim Canvas link output, language matching, and multi-turn edit expectations. It does not cover permissions, failure modes, or persistence details, but for a content-creation tool it is unusually transparent.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded and clearly sectioned, but it is very long for a tool definition and includes response-formatting guidance, layout-switch prohibitions, and repeated emphatic instructions. Much of it is useful, but it does not meet a strict every-sentence-earns-its-place bar.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, four parameters, and a schema with 100% description coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral and structural context an agent needs. It explains how to build the map, what the output should look like, and how to handle follow-up edits.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema: title length and emoji requirement, exactly 3-6 Level 1 branches with thematic emojis, 2-3 levels of depth, note content rules, isTask behavior, and relationship default-empty rules. Only rootText receives little extra explanation.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a professional, highly structured mind map on IdeaMap Canvas.' It also names the exact request types it covers (mind map, concept map, knowledge tree, visual outline), distinguishing it from sibling editing tools.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool via the semantic trigger and prioritization instruction, and it names alternatives for later changes: 'ALWAYS use editing tools (add_nodes, update_node, delete_nodes, add_arrows). DO NOT recreate the map from scratch unless explicitly requested.' It also states when not to use relationship arrows.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources