Capture a PNG of the shared whiteboard as the human sees it, so you can check layout and spot visual issues before sharing.
PNG of the board as the human sees it, to check your layout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | Only these elements | |
| dark | No | Dark theme |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey a meaningful behavioral trait — that output is a rendered visual rather than structured data — but never states that the call is non-mutating, has no side effects, or how large/expensive the render is.
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 short sentence with the output format and purpose front-loaded; no filler to remove.
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-parameter, zero-required, no-annotation read tool this is minimally adequate — format and intent are covered and the schema covers parameters. Missing is any indication of return size, whether ids filter or crop, and how it relates to the export sibling.
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 'ids' (only these elements) and 'dark' (dark theme) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about scoping or theme behavior, which is acceptable at the baseline when the schema is complete.
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 the output format (PNG), the resource (the board) and the perspective ('as the human sees it'), which distinguishes it from a data-level read. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby canvas_export or canvas_read siblings, so an agent must infer the split.
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?
'To check your layout' implies the workflow (verify visual arrangement after drawing), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus canvas_export/canvas_read, and no statement of exclusions or preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.