Retrieve a list of all canvas widgets with their IDs, types, titles, live status, and current selection. Enables agents to read the current state of the visual canvas.
List every widget on the canvas with its id, kind, title, live status and current selection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden. 'List' and 'live status' imply a non-mutating read and disclose the shape of the returned data, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether 'live status' reflects real-time state or a cached snapshot.
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 sentence that front-loads the verb and scope and wastes no words while still enumerating the returned fields.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and even lists the returned fields. It stops short of describing ordering or scale limits, which would matter for a canvas with many widgets.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is unfiltered, returning everything on the canvas.
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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (every widget on the canvas) and enumerates the returned fields (id, kind, title, live status, selection). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling read_widget by scoping to 'every widget', though it never names that 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?
Usage is only implied: 'every widget' suggests a bulk/inventory read as opposed to the single-item read_widget, but the description never states when to prefer this over read_widget or any other sibling. No exclusions or preconditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.