DB Planner

Draw a shape

draw_shape

Draw one rectangle, diamond or ellipse on a project's board and return its id. points are exactly two OPPOSITE CORNERS of the shape's bounding box, [x1,y1,x2,y2] or two {x,y} objects, in board world coordinates. Optionally bind text inside it; the shape grows downward to fit long text. Free text without a shape, groups and links go through update_board.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fill`	No	Fill color as a #rrggbb hex. Omit for an outline-only shape.
`kind`	No	"rect" (the default), "diamond" or "ellipse".	rect
`text`	No	Text to show inside the shape. Omit for a bare shape.
`color`	No	Outline color: "auto" (adapts to the viewer's theme, and the default) or a #rrggbb hex.	auto
`width`	No	Outline width in board units. Default 2.
`points`	Yes	Two opposite corners, as two {x,y} objects or a flat [x1,y1,x2,y2] list.
`fontSize`	No	Font size for the text, 4 to 128. Omit for the board's default.
`projectId`	Yes	Project id (uuid).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavioral details: points represent two opposite bounding-box corners in board world coordinates, text is optionally bound inside the shape, and the shape grows downward to fit long text. It is transparent without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentences deliver the core purpose, critical point semantics, and an important exclusion for alternative content in update_board. There is no filler or redundant restating of the 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?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the core geometry, optional text behavior, and where to route non-shape content.

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?

The input schema already covers all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra context beyond the schema, such as board world coordinates for points and the downward-growth behavior for long text, pushing it above baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: draw one rectangle, diamond, or ellipse on a project's board and return its id. It clearly distinguishes from update_board by explicitly noting that free text without a shape, groups, and links go through the sibling tool.

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?

The description gives concrete when-to-use context for drawing shapes and explicitly names the alternative path for non-shape content via update_board. This gives an agent enough routing information to choose the correct tool without ambiguity.

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?