Read the shared whiteboard to retrieve its current scene as a summary or JSON, along with any human changes and notes since your last read.
Read the board: scene description (or JSON), then what the human changed and noted since your last read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | Only describe these elements | |
| format | No | summary (default) or json |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns a scene description or JSON and that the result includes human changes/notes since the previous read, implying incremental stateful behavior, but it omits read-only confirmation, first-read behavior, and error/rate-limit context.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It puts the core operation first and then specifies the return content.
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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives enough information to understand the main return content. It is slightly incomplete about first-read behavior and the exact meaning of "since your last read," but the schema covers parameter details.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both optional parameters. The description maps loosely to the format parameter via "or JSON" but does not explain the ids filtering parameter or add details beyond the schema.
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/resource pair ("Read the board") and explains the returned content: scene description or JSON plus changes/notes since the last read. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as canvas_screenshot, canvas_search, or canvas_export.
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?
Usage is implied by "Read the board" and by the mention of changes since the last read, which suggests incremental inspection. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this instead of canvas_screenshot, canvas_search, or canvas_export, nor does it give exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.