Convert Mermaid definitions into editable board elements for flowcharts, sequence diagrams, and class diagrams so agents can sketch visual explanations on a shared canvas.
Convert a Mermaid definition (flowchart, sequence, class…) into editable elements on the board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | Left edge | |
| y | No | Top edge | |
| definition | Yes | Mermaid source |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that existing Mermaid text becomes editable board elements, but says nothing about whether elements are added or replaced, what happens on invalid Mermaid syntax, or whether a board/workspace context is required.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource appear immediately, followed by the output form and diagram examples.
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 three-parameter transformation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action but leaves out return value (element IDs/handles), positioning defaults, and failure behavior — details an agent would want 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 description coverage is 100%, with x, y, and definition each documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the loose notion of placement 'on the board' and does not explain coordinate behavior or units beyond the schema's 'Left edge'/'Top edge'.
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 (convert) and resource (Mermaid definition) with example diagram types, and names the output (editable elements on the board). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like canvas_draw or canvas_export, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 never says when to prefer this over canvas_draw (hand-drawing elements) or what preconditions apply, such as needing an open board. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.