moki-whiteboard

by JKZeng-cell

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

管理白板页面分组

whiteboard_manage_page_groups

Destructive

List, create, rename, or delete whiteboard page groups while preserving pages as ungrouped when a group is removed.

Instructions

List, create, rename, or delete page groups. Deleting a group preserves its pages as ungrouped. 创建、重命名、删除或列出页面分组；删除分组时页面会保留并回到未分组。

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "whiteboard_manage_page_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`action`	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
`groupId`	No
`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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description usefully adds that deleting a group preserves its pages as ungrouped — real context beyond the annotations. However, it omits other meaningful behavior: that writes require an expectedVersion from inspect and that stale writes fail with VERSION_CONFLICT, and that create/update/delete are not idempotent.

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 tight clauses covering the action set and the critical delete caveat, front-loaded and free of filler. The bilingual duplication doubles length without adding information, which keeps it off a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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 destructive caveat is covered. Still, for a five-parameter destructive mutation tool with a low-coverage schema, the description leaves an agent unsure which parameters each action demands and how versioning is expected to be used.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 40% (only boardId and expectedVersion are documented), so the description needs to compensate. It does not explain that groupId is required for update/delete, that name is required for create/rename, or how boardId defaults to the most recently updated board — the 'rename' wording also hides that the underlying action value is 'update'.

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?

The description states a concrete verb set (List, create, rename, delete) against a specific resource (page groups), which is distinct from the sibling whiteboard_manage_pages that handles individual pages. It does not explicitly name that sibling for contrast, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied through the enumerated actions, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over whiteboard_manage_pages or whiteboard_inspect, and no mention of prerequisites such as obtaining a version first. The action enum in the schema does more routing work than the description.

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

Deploy Server