excalidraw-editor-mcp

by creativedswork

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Inspect Excalidraw project

inspect_project

Retrieve a bounded project and canvas summary to understand the Excalidraw project's structure and contents.

Instructions

Returns a bounded project and canvas summary.

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": {
      "projectPath": "<projectPath>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectPath`	Yes	Full workspace-relative project path, for example designs/m3.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Returns' implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, what 'bounded' means, or what happens if the project path is invalid. No side effects or special behaviors are disclosed.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, though the term 'bounded' could benefit from clarification regardless of conciseness.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must substitute for both. It fails to describe what the 'project and canvas summary' actually contains, what boundaries apply, or how the response is structured. This is inadequate for an agent to confidently interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 100% because the only parameter, projectPath, is already documented with a clear example. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Returns' with a clear resource: 'bounded project and canvas summary.' This distinguishes it from list-style siblings like list_projects and from canvas-level tools like inspect_canvas. However, 'bounded' is slightly ambiguous and does not fully explain the scope.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use inspect_project versus alternatives such as inspect_canvas, list_projects, or check_canvas. There is no mention of appropriate context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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