Skip to main content
Glama
bjcoombs

excalidraw-room-mcp

by bjcoombs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_elements

Soft-delete elements from a live Excalidraw canvas by ID, skipping elements drawn by active peers unless forced. Reports refused IDs to avoid overwriting others' work.

Instructions

Soft-delete elements by id (Excalidraw keeps tombstones so peers converge). An element another agent in the room drew is left alone and reported as refused unless force is true; a person's elements and those of an agent that has left are never guarded. The change reaches connected peers immediately and the room's stored copy shortly after; a result line beginning NOT PERSISTED means the stored copy is behind and the server is retrying in the background.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYes
forceNoEdit elements another agent in the room drew anyway. Without it those ids are skipped and reported as refused, so the agent still working on them keeps a true picture of the scene.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / force
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Edit elements another agent in the room drew anyway. Without it those ids are skipped and reported as refused, so the agent still working on them keeps a true picture of the scene.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: soft-delete/tombstone semantics, refusal behavior for other agents' elements, the force escape hatch, who is never guarded, propagation timing (peers immediately, stored copy shortly after), and the meaning of a NOT PERSISTED result line. This is unusually thorough behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and dense with useful detail, but delivered as a single run-on paragraph mixing guard logic, propagation, and error semantics. Every clause carries signal, though the block could be broken up for scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important behaviors (refusal, force, propagation, not-persisted retry). It omits what happens with non-existent or already-deleted ids, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: force is documented in the schema and its meaning is echoed (not extended) in the description, while ids is undocumented everywhere and the description only says "by id" without format or edge-case guidance. The description partially compensates but leaves the required parameter's semantics thin.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Soft-delete elements by id") and immediately scopes the operation's semantics (tombstones so peers converge). This is clearly distinguishable from add_elements, update_elements, and translate_elements, which modify rather than remove.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the guard conditions (other agents' elements refused unless force is true; person's elements and departed agents never guarded), which implicitly tells the agent when force is required. However, it never contrasts this tool against a specific sibling alternative or states a broader when-to-use context, leaving usage implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools