Skip to main content
Glama
Hackeatutiempo

Mapache

by Hackeatutiempo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Add mind map branches

add_nodes

Add child nodes under an existing mind map node using an indented outline or flat text list. Saves a new board revision live and returns each new node ID for growing the map.

Instructions

Add child nodes under an existing node of a mind map, from an indented outline (nested branches) or a flat list of texts. It is saved at once as a new revision of the board and appears live in any browser that has it open (the person can undo it with Ctrl+Z). Returns each new node with its id. Use it to grow a map; use add_mindmap for a separate new map and create_board for a new board.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boardYesBoard id or title. Use "open" for the board the person has open in the app
textsNoAlternative to outline: one child per text, all at the same level
parentYesNode id (from read_board), its exact text, or a path like "Central idea > Branch". The new nodes become its children
outlineNoIndented outline, one idea per line; indent (2 spaces or a tab) to nest. Markdown inside a line: **bold**, *italic*, `code`, [link](https://…)
positionNoInsert at this index among the existing children (default: at the end)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / parent / description
      Previous value: -"Node id (from read_board), its exact text, or a path like \"Central idea > Branch\""New value: +"Node id (from read_board), its exact text, or a path like \"Central idea > Branch\". The new nodes become its children"
    • changedInput schema / properties / texts / description
      Previous value: -"Alternative to outline: one child per text"New value: +"Alternative to outline: one child per text, all at the same level"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the change is saved immediately as a new revision, propagates live to open browsers, and is undoable via Ctrl+Z. It also states the return payload (each new node with its id), which is otherwise undisclosed since there is no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences: the action and input modes come first, then behavioral guarantees, then sibling routing. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: revision semantics, live propagation, undo availability, and the shape of the return value. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented, including the outline-vs-texts alternatives and the parent path syntax. The description restates the two input modes ('indented outline (nested branches) or a flat list of texts') but adds no format, default, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add child nodes under an existing node of a mind map') and names the two input modes (indented outline or flat text list). It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings add_mindmap and create_board, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Use it to grow a map') plus named alternatives with their own conditions ('use add_mindmap for a separate new map and create_board for a new board'). The add-vs-create distinction is spelled out rather than implied.

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