mcp-canva

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

desktop_drag

Perform a drag-and-drop from one screen coordinate to another to place elements, clips, or assets onto a Canva canvas or timeline.

Instructions

Drag and drop from (x1,y1) to (x2,y2) - e.g. an element/clip onto the canvas or timeline.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "x1": "<x1>",
      "y1": "<y1>",
      "x2": "<x2>",
      "y2": "<y2>"
    },
    "name": "desktop_drag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`x1`	Yes
`x2`	Yes
`y1`	Yes
`y2`	Yes
`duration`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose the coordinate system/units, whether motion is animated, what the 'duration' parameter affects, or what state changes or errors to expect from this UI interaction.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and endpoints first, with a brief illustrative example tacked on. No wasted words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter coverage the description is too thin: coordinate semantics, duration behavior, and expected UI effects are all left unspecified for a 5-parameter action tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does map x1,y1 to the start and x2,y2 to the destination, adding real meaning, but the duration parameter is never mentioned and no units or ranges are given for any parameter.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific action (drag and drop) with the exact endpoints, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling desktop_click (single point) and desktop_scroll. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 example 'an element/clip onto the canvas or timeline' implies the usage scenario, but there is no explicit guidance on when to drag versus click, scroll, or type, and no prerequisites or restrictions.

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