Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
moki-whiteboard

moki-whiteboard

by JKZeng-cell
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

whiteboard_delete_board

Destructive

Permanently deletes a specified whiteboard after explicit confirmation; provide expectedVersion to prevent version conflicts. Original mapped files remain untouched.

Instructions

Permanently delete an explicit board; requires confirm=true. Prefer expectedVersion. Does not delete original mapped files. 删除明确指定的整张白板，不可撤回；需要 confirm=true，建议提供 expectedVersion。不会删除原始映射文件。

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": {
      "boardId": "<boardId>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "whiteboard_delete_board"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boardIdYes
confirmYes
expectedVersionNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boardNo
errorNo
boardsNo
pageIdNo
boardIdNo
currentNo
deletedNo
versionNo
alignedIdsNo
deletedIdsNo
elementIdsNo
updatedIdsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.7

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: irreversibility ('不可撤回'), a mandatory confirm gate, and the side effect that original mapped files survive. It stops short of stating permission requirements or what a version mismatch returns.

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 compact, front-loaded sentences that put the destructive nature and the confirm requirement first. The full bilingual duplication doubles the token count for the same content, which is a minor cost but no information is wasted.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is destroyed, the safety gate, versioning, and the fact that mapped files remain. Only the failure behavior on a stale expectedVersion and the ID format for boardId are unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and only partially discharges it: it explains confirm=true and recommends expectedVersion, but never states what boardId accepts (ID vs name) or what expectedVersion protects against beyond a vague 'prefer'. boardId semantics are only hinted at by 'explicit board'.

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 ('Permanently delete an explicit board') and scopes it to explicit identification, which distinguishes it from whiteboard_delete_elements and from any name-based lookup. An agent can tell immediately this removes an entire board rather than its contents.

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 description implies usage (permanent removal, confirm required, prefer expectedVersion for concurrency) but never states when-not to use it or names a sibling alternative for adjacent operations. Guidance on expectedVersion is the only conditional advice, and it is framed as a parameter preference rather than a use case.

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