moki-whiteboard

by JKZeng-cell

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

对齐白板元素

whiteboard_align_elements

Idempotent

Align or evenly distribute two or more whiteboard elements by exact ID using edge, center, or spacing modes.

Instructions

Align or evenly distribute two or more elements using their exact IDs. 将两个或更多元素按边缘、中心或间距进行对齐分布。

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": {
      "ids": "<ids>",
      "mode": "<mode>"
    },
    "name": "whiteboard_align_elements"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes
`mode`	Yes
`boardId`	No	白板 ID；省略时使用最近更新的白板，建议始终指定准确 ID	default
`expectedVersion`	No	先 inspect 获得版本；过期写入会返回 VERSION_CONFLICT 而不会覆盖内容

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`board`	No
`error`	No
`boards`	No
`pageId`	No
`boardId`	No
`current`	No
`deleted`	No
`version`	No
`alignedIds`	No
`deletedIds`	No
`elementIds`	No
`updatedIds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.7Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the agent knows repeat calls are safe and nothing is destroyed. The description adds that alignment works on edges, centers, or spacing, but says nothing about the required inspection/version flow or what the operation returns, which are the non-obvious behaviors here.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action and the ID requirement front-loaded, no filler. The English/Chinese duplication adds length without adding information, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey the operation and its ID-based targeting, which it does. The one gap is that the version-conflict workflow referenced by expectedVersion is left entirely to the schema.

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 50% and boardId/expectedVersion are documented inline. The description does add conceptual meaning for 'mode' by naming edges, centers, and spacing, but the eight enum values are self-explanatory and the 'exact IDs' note only restates what the ids parameter requires.

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 pair (align / evenly distribute) and the resource (two or more elements), plus the key constraint that exact IDs are required. This clearly separates it from whiteboard_update_elements or whiteboard_add_elements, though no sibling is named explicitly to reinforce the distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The 'two or more elements using their exact IDs' phrasing implies the precondition for calling it, but the description never says when to choose this over whiteboard_update_elements or how to obtain the IDs in the first place. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server