Soleil Clusters

Add cards

add_cards

ADDS cards to a board; existing cards are never touched. Leave x, y, w and h out: cards are sized to what they hold and laid out by section as arrange_board does, in the order sent (x and y place only one or two cards). A note's body takes "- " bullets, "1. " lists, "[ ] " checkboxes, bold, italic: one idea per note; long writing goes in write_doc. Name a section in group; groups gives their order and colours. For pictures from the web use import_urls, not uploaded bytes; for your own bytes upload_image, then pass its image_key.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "board_id": "<board_id>",
      "cards": "<cards>"
    },
    "name": "add_cards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cards`	Yes	The cards to add
`draft`	No	The draft key create_boards returned. Pass it on every call about that draft.
`groups`	No	Sections the cards name (group), in order, each with an optional outline color
`layout`	No	Arrange the whole batch this way
`board_id`	Yes	The board
`on_conflict`	No	"identifier" updates rather than duplicates

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`live`	No
`cards`	No
`groups`	No
`board_id`	No
`warnings`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / draft

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The draft key create_boards returned. Pass it on every call about that draft.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, non-idempotent, write behaviour; the description goes beyond them by stating that existing cards are untouched, that cards are auto-sized to content and laid out per section in the order sent, and that x/y only take effect for one or two cards. It does not cover the draft lifecycle or conflict/identifier behaviour, which are the remaining behavioural gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the safety guarantee, then packed with routing rules in compact clauses; nearly every sentence carries operational information. It is dense to the point of being cramped — several distinct concepts are welded together with semicolons — but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With full schema coverage, full annotations, and an output schema, the description's remaining job is behavioural and routing guidance, which it largely delivers. The omission of layout and on_conflict semantics is minor given the schema documents both.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add real meaning about x/y/w/h suppression and the body's markdown subset (bullets, numbered lists, checkboxes, bold, italic), but it says nothing about layout, on_conflict, or draft, leaving those to the schema alone.

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 ("ADDS cards to a board") and immediately draws the boundary that separates it from update_cards: existing cards are never touched. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from arrange_board by explaining that the same arrangement is applied to the incoming batch only.

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 gives explicit routing rules to four siblings: long writing goes to write_doc, web pictures to import_urls, own bytes to upload_image (then pass image_key), and section ordering/colours to groups. It also states a concrete usage condition for omitting coordinates, which is the main decision an agent faces.

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

All Soleil Clusters tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.