DB Planner

Draw ink or an arrow

draw

Draw one line drawing on a project's board and return its id. kind "ink" is a freehand marker stroke: points are a sampled path, up to 1000, and a single point renders as a dot. kind "arrow" is an arrow: points are VERTICES, two for a straight arrow and more to bend it, with the head on the last segment, 2 to 50 of them. Points are board world coordinates, given either as [{"x":1,"y":2}, ...] or as a flat [1,2,3,4, ...] list, and are stored rounded to 2 decimals.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No	"ink" (freehand marker, the default) or "arrow".	ink
`color`	No	Ink color: "auto" (adapts to each viewer's light or dark theme, and the default) or a #rrggbb hex.	auto
`width`	No	Stroke width in board units. The app's own pens are 2 (thin), 3.5 (medium) and 6 (bold).
`points`	Yes	The path or vertices, as {x,y} objects or a flat x,y,x,y number list.
`projectId`	Yes	Project id (uuid).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`color`	Yes
`width`	Yes
`points`	Yes
`strokeId`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the sparse annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: point-count limits (1000 for ink, 2–50 for arrows), flat or object coordinate input, rounded storage to 2 decimals, single-point dots, and arrow-head placement on the last segment. This gives the agent a strong model of how the tool behaves and stores data.

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?

The four sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized by kind and point semantics, with no filler. Each sentence contributes constraints or behavior not available elsewhere.

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 drawing tool with two kinds and nontrivial point semantics, the description covers the operation, constraints, formats, and return value; an output schema exists to supply the exact response shape. The only minor gap is the absence of sibling comparisons, which was already accounted for in usage_guidelines.

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?

Although the schema already documents every parameter, the description adds significant semantics: it explains the meaning of points per kind, constraints on point count, coordinate formats, rounding behavior, and the returned id. These details exceed the schema descriptions and materially reduce the chance of misuse.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a precise action: 'Draw one line drawing on a project's board and return its id,' immediately establishing what the tool creates and returns. It clearly distinguishes the two kinds (freehand ink vs. arrow), but it never names the sibling draw_shape or explicitly says what this tool is not, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives clear conditions for choosing kind 'ink' versus 'arrow' and for using the tool on a project board, so the intended use is implied. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when not to use this tool or when to reach for a sibling such as draw_shape or erase_drawings.

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

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions clearly explain boundaries. However, list_diagrams/list_documents and get_board/get_board_image are two pairs that both concern the same underlying resource, so an agent could initially select the wrong one without reading carefully.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tool names are snake_case verb_noun pairs such as create_project, update_document, and unpublish_listing, which is very consistent. The exceptions are bare 'draw' and the non-pattern 'whoami', so it is not a perfect 5.

Tool Count2/5

With 38 tools, the surface exceeds the 25+ threshold and spans orgs, projects, documents, board drawing, membership, and marketplace publishing. While each subdomain is individually reasonable, the aggregate is heavy and likely to overwhelm an agent; several related actions could be grouped or exposed more sparingly.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the main lifecycle: org/project/document CRUD, board rendering and editing, member management, and template publish/use/update. Minor gaps remain—there is no get_project single-resource read, and groups/links/notes are manipulated only through the generic update_board rather than dedicated tools—but these are workable.

Resources

Need Help?