Create a Slack canvas from markdown. Add a channel ID to tab it in that channel, or omit it to make a standalone canvas.
Create a canvas from markdown. channel_id tabs it in that channel; omit for a standalone canvas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| channel_id | No | ||
| markdown_content | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful scoping behavior (channel-tabbed vs. standalone canvas), but says nothing about permissions, whether standalone canvases are shared, or the result of the call.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the branching rule for channel_id is stated compactly with no filler.
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 3-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the key branching parameter, but leaves title undocumented and gives no hint of what is returned or where the new canvas can be found.
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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does explain channel_id meaningfully and implies markdown_content. However, the title parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undocumented anywhere.
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+resource ('Create a canvas from markdown') and immediately distinguishes the two modes via the channel_id sentence. It does not name siblings like canvas_edit, but the create vs. edit distinction is unambiguous from the verb.
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 explains the effect of channel_id vs. omitting it, which is runtime behavior rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no stated condition for choosing this tool over canvas_edit or any prerequisite/permission context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.