Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sketchflow-mcp

sketchflow-mcp

by 4Ship-ca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

say

Display a short speech bubble on the sketch board to communicate messages or prompts without altering the drawing.

Instructions

Show a short speech bubble from you on the board (does not draw).

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "say"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
secondsNo0 = until dismissed (default 20)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0-beta.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does clarify the bubble is transient-looking ('short') and non-drawing, but it doesn't explain dismissal behavior, whether it blocks, whether it persists across sessions, or what the caller gets back. The 'seconds' semantics live only in the schema, not the description.

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?

A single tightly written sentence with the most useful clarification ('does not draw') front-loaded in parentheses. No wasted words, though it is perhaps too terse given the gaps above.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a simple 2-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should still cover when to use it and the text parameter. Neither is addressed, so an agent must infer usage and text semantics entirely from the name and schema.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%: 'seconds' is documented in the schema with '0 = until dismissed (default 20)', but 'text' has no description anywhere, and the tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. It fails to compensate for the uncovered required parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show a short speech bubble from you') and resource ('on the board'), and the parenthetical '(does not draw)' distinguishes it from draw sibling tools. It is not differentiated from edit_items or board, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance: it never says when to call say instead of draw, edit_items, or board. The '(does not draw)' hint implies it is for annotation/messaging rather than content creation, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools