whiteboard_listLists whiteboard documents available to agents, so you can select a canvas to read, edit, or manage.
列出可供 Agent 操作的所有白板文档。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a meaningful filter nuance (only boards the agent can operate on), but says nothing about ordering, result limits, or what a listing entry contains — the output schema covers the latter, so this is a modest addition.
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?
A single short sentence with zero filler, with the scope qualifier front-loaded alongside the verb and resource.
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?
For a no-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and safe annotations, the description gives enough to call it correctly. Only a hint about result ordering or typical follow-up (pass an id to another whiteboard_* tool) is absent.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; no parameter semantics are needed and none are missing.
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 (列出/list) and resource (白板文档/whiteboard documents), and adds a scope qualifier '可供 Agent 操作' that distinguishes it from a raw enumeration. It does not explicitly contrast with whiteboard_inspect or the other siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
The phrase '可供 Agent 操作' implies this is the discovery step before operations, but the description never says when to call it instead of whiteboard_inspect or whiteboard_get_thumbnail. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.