whiteboard_createCreate a standalone whiteboard document that automatically includes an empty page, ready for drawing or adding content.
创建一个独立白板文档，并自动包含一个空白页面。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | 白板标题 |
| 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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds a genuine side-effect not derivable from them: the new document automatically contains one blank page. That is useful non-obvious behavioral context, though nothing is said about permissions or failure modes.
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?
One short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Well sized for a trivial single-parameter creation tool, though it could have spent one more clause on sibling differentiation.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the core action plus the auto-created blank page. It is nonetheless incomplete for a tool sitting among three closely related creation/routing siblings, since it never clarifies when this is the right choice.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'title' parameter is documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra meaning about the title (length limits, defaults, format), which is the expected baseline.
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: creating a standalone whiteboard document ('创建一个独立白板文档'). Clear enough to be understood, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like whiteboard_create_page or whiteboard_duplicate, so an agent must infer which one creates the board itself.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. With 15 siblings including whiteboard_create_page and whiteboard_duplicate, the description leaves the agent to guess which tool applies to a given intent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.