Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
canvaskeep-mcp

canvaskeep-mcp

Official
by CanvasKeep
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update_diagram

Rename an Excalidraw diagram by updating its title. Provide the diagram UUID and the new title.

Instructions

Update a diagram's title (rename it).

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": {
      "diagram_id": "<diagram_id>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "update_diagram"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesThe new title for the diagram
diagram_idYesThe diagram UUID to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the operation is a rename; it says nothing about required permissions, whether the change is reversible, whether the title must be unique, or what happens on conflict. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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 short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though it is so terse that it verges on under-specification rather than optimal structure.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is very simple: two required string parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema needed. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, with the only shortfall being behavioral context a rename operation would ideally carry.

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 100% (both diagram_id and title are documented in the schema, including the 1-200 length bounds), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 (update/rename) and resource (diagram's title), and the parenthetical '(rename it)' sharply narrows the scope to title-only, which distinguishes it from siblings like save_diagram_scene or create_diagram. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description says nothing about when to choose this tool over save_diagram_scene or create_diagram, nor any prerequisites or conditions of use. It is implied from the name, but no guidance is written.

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