moki-whiteboard

by JKZeng-cell

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

新建 MOKI 白板

whiteboard_create

Create a local whiteboard with one blank page and return its new board ID and version for immediate editing.

Instructions

Create a local whiteboard with one empty page. Returns the new board ID and version. 创建一个独立白板文档，并自动包含一个空白页面。

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "whiteboard_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes	白板标题

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), so the description's added value is the initial resource state — exactly one empty page is created — and the fact that it is local. Return values are also disclosed, though an output schema exists, making that partly redundant.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The English sentence is tight and front-loaded, but it is immediately restated in Chinese with no added information, so roughly half the text is duplicated content rather than earning its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter creation tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, initial content, and return shape. Only the routing relative to sibling creation/editing tools is left unstated.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'title' with its 1–120 length bounds. The description adds no constraints or meaning beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: create a local whiteboard containing one empty page, plus what it returns. The 'one empty page' detail implicitly separates it from whiteboard_create_page, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the 16 siblings. The usage is inferable from the name (create a board before adding pages or elements) but the description never says so.

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

Deploy Server