Actualiza nombre y/o contenido de un canvas
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| content | No | Contenido del canvas: el objeto JSON de la escena (nodos y edges) | |
| canvas_id | Yes | ID del canvas | |
| workspace_id | No | UUID del workspace, o su nombre tal como lo dice el usuario ('Acme', 'el personal'). Omitir si el token ya tiene workspace fijo |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is sparse and does not add significant behavioral context beyond the action itself. The annotations already cover the necessary behavioral trait (destructiveHint: true), so the description provides only the minimum required confirmation of intent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, highly focused sentence. It is concise, direct, and front-loaded, achieving zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Since this is a complex mutation tool involving arbitrary JSON content, the description is too brief. It fails to mention failure modes, required permissions beyond the hint, or how the update handles partial field changes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is moderate (75%), setting a baseline of 3. The description reiterates that the tool accepts 'nombre y/o contenido,' which is already detailed in the schema properties, providing no crucial semantic depth.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Actualiza' / Updates) and clearly identifies the resource ('canvas'), specifying the scope of the modification (name and/or content). It provides clear intent for the agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description focuses only on what the tool does, not when it should be used. It offers no guidance on why an agent should choose this update function over the `create_canvas` or `get_canvas` sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
