DB Planner

Add board image

add_board_image

Put a picture on a project's board and return its image id. Supply EITHER data (base64-encoded PNG, JPEG, GIF or WebP) OR sourceUrl (an https URL the server downloads). The picture is stored as a blob and an image card is placed at x,y; it is sized from the image itself, capped at 640 units on its long edge. Move or resize it afterwards with update_board's images map.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`x`	No	Board x coordinate for the image's top-left corner.
`y`	No	Board y coordinate for the image's top-left corner.
`data`	No	Base64-encoded image bytes. Omit when using sourceUrl.
`projectId`	Yes	Project id (uuid).
`sourceUrl`	No	Public https URL to download the image from. Omit when using data.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`h`	Yes
`w`	Yes
`x`	Yes
`y`	Yes
`url`	Yes
`bytes`	Yes
`imageId`	Yes
`contentType`	Yes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Description discloses behavioral details beyond annotations: image stored as a blob, card placed at x,y, sizing capped at 640 units, base64 formats accepted, and EITHER/OR between data and sourceUrl. Annotations only cover openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so this is genuinely additive.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose/return, parameter semantics, and post-processing behavior. No filler or repetition of schema.

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?

For a single-required-param tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers usage, edge-size behavior, storage semantics, alternatives, and follow-up operations. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

While schema covers parameter names and types at 100%, the description adds meaning not present in the schema: mutually-exclusive data/sourceUrl, base64-encoding, supported formats, https requirement, server-download behavior, and 640-unit cap. This materially improves an agent's invocation correctness.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Put a picture on a project's board' and returns its image id. Clearly distinct from siblings like update_board (modify), get_board_image (retrieve), and draw_arrow (vector drawings).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains when to use the tool (when adding an image) and explicitly routes follow-up resizing/moving to update_board's images map. It could more explicitly exclude update_board for adding, but the 'afterwards' guidance is clear.

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

All DB Planner tools Inspect

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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource/action: board retrieval is split into JSON vs image with explicit cross-references, and drawing tools are separated from the generic update_board. Look-alikes like list_documents vs list_diagrams and publish_listing vs use_template are differentiated clearly.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern: create_project, list_documents, update_board, upsert_org_member. A few noun-only names like my_listings, project_file_counts and template_categories break the pattern, so naming is consistent but not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

40 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold for a single server, even though the domains are clustered into org/project/document/board/template areas. The large surface will make tool selection and onboarding heavier for an agent than necessary.

Completeness3/5

Core lifecycle coverage for org/project/document/board/template is mostly present, and update_board serves as a flexible escape hatch. However, the board API reads rectangle/diamond/ellipse/free-text drawings and groups/links but only offers explicit create/erase for strokes and arrows; paid template purchase/access is also left unclear.

Resources

Need Help?