Adds a new page to an Inkboard board file or the live board in the desktop app, then returns its page number.
Adds a page. Returns its number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| path | No | Path of the board file (.inkboard; .inkboard.json and .tableau.json also accepted). Optional when the application is open: the tool then acts live on the displayed board (undoable with Ctrl+Z). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool mutates state and returns a page number, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, live-board behavior, undoability, or what happens when no path is supplied.
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?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded, with each sentence conveying a distinct fact: the action and the return value. It is not verbose, though its brevity contributes to the tool's under-specification overall.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, two parameters, and only 50% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits board context, the optional live-board mode, parameter semantics, and any side-effect or permission details an agent would need before calling it.
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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It does not explain what "name" means or when "path" should be provided, leaving the schema to carry most of the burden for one parameter and none for the other.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: "Adds a page." It is clear what operation is performed, but it does not distinguish this tool from page-related siblings such as manage_pages or create_board.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use add_page versus manage_pages, create_board, or other sibling tools. It also omits prerequisites such as whether a board must already exist or be open.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.