Locate active Excalidraw elements by query, type, frame, ID, or connection criteria so you can target diagram objects for inspection or editing.
Find active elements matching query string, type, frame, or connection criteria.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| frame_id | No | ||
| element_id | No | ||
| connected_to | No | ||
| include_bound_labels | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | ||
| matches | Yes | ||
| revision | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the notion of 'active' elements (implying inactive/deleted ones are excluded), but says nothing about result ordering, the 50-default/200-max cap, or how criteria interact — the schema carries those facts.
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?
A single compact sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than tight — the brevity comes at the cost of any usage or parameter detail an agent would need for a 7-parameter tool.
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?
Seven optional parameters with zero schema descriptions and no output schema explanation in the description leaves real gaps; an agent cannot tell how to combine filters, what 'active' excludes, or what include_bound_labels does. The output schema's existence excuses explaining return values, but not the missing filter semantics.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it partially does, mapping to query, type, frame_id, and connected_to. However element_id, limit, and especially include_bound_labels (a non-obvious boolean affecting what is returned) get no explanation anywhere in the definition.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Find active elements') plus the criteria dimensions it filters on (query string, type, frame, connection). This is clearly a filtered search over elements and distinguishable from the singular 'get_element' sibling, though the word 'active' is left undefined and no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says whether to prefer this over get_element, get_scene, or get_scene_summary, nor what happens when multiple criteria are combined or none are supplied. Usage can only be inferred from the list of criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.