sketchflow-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

draw

Render and animate vector items on a browser sketch board—lines, shapes, SVG paths, text, dimensions, fills, and shaded 3D primitives—with shared endpoints joining as joints.

Instructions

Draw vector items on the board (lines, polylines, shapes, 3D primitives box/cylinder/cone/sphere/pyramid/prism with shaded faces, dashed hidden edges and centre lines, freehand, SVG paths, text — including text along a path — parametric dimensions, and region fills that follow their outline). Endpoints that share coordinates become joined joints. Items animate in so the user can watch.

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": {
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "draw"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`items`	Yes
`label`	No	undo-history label
`layer`	No	Layer id, exact name, or index (0 = bottom). Defaults to the active layer.
`animate`	No
`new_layer`	No	create a new layer with this name and draw on it

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0-beta.1Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavior—shared endpoints become joined joints, items animate in, 3D primitives may show hidden edges and centre lines, and fills follow outlines—but it omits write semantics such as append vs replace, permissions, undo/label effects, and layer/animate behavior.

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?

It is a single front-loaded paragraph; the long parenthetical type list is dense but conveys scope without redundant sentences. The final two sentences add behavior rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex multi-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives scope and a few behaviors but leaves important operational context implicit: how items, layer, animate, and new_layer should be chosen, side effects, and interaction with edit_items. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 description coverage is 60%, and the schema itself documents many item fields plus top-level layer, new_layer, and label descriptions. The description largely restates the item-type enum and adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it neither fully compensates for the coverage gap nor earns above baseline.

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 specific verb and resource ('Draw vector items on the board') and enumerates the supported item families, so the tool's scope is clear. It does not explicitly contrast with edit_items or other drawing-related siblings, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of using edit_items for existing items, and no prerequisites or layer workflow. The creation-oriented wording only implies usage.

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