mib2c-mcp

by TomasSlekys

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Align items

align_items

Aligns two or more item boxes to one edge or center line, matching the app inspector, in a single undo step.

Instructions

Lines up two or more items' boxes on one edge or centre line of the box around them all (as the app's inspector does); one undo step.

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": {
      "items": "<items>",
      "edge": "<edge>"
    },
    "name": "align_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`edge`	Yes
`items`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and usefully discloses that this is a mutation taking one undo step and mirroring the app inspector behavior. It does not explain permissions, failure cases, or what happens when the supplied items cannot be aligned.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. The undo-step note adds useful context without bloating the description.

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?

For a simple two-parameter alignment operation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core effect and undo behavior adequately. It remains incomplete on item-reference semantics, alternatives, and the minimum-item discrepancy.

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 low, and the description does not explain the accepted item reference forms such as `{"point": id}`, `{"zone": index}`, or `{"zone": index, "corner": n}`. It also says two or more items while the schema allows `minItems: 1`, leaving an input expectation unresolved.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it lines up multiple items' boxes on an edge or centre line of their shared bounding box. It clearly separates this action from moving or distributing items, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool it replaces.

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?

It implies the tool is for aligning items, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over distribute_items or move_items. Prerequisites and exclusions, such as needing two or more selected items, are only lightly implied.

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