klypix-mcp

by dahshanlabs

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

List KLYPIX canvases

list_canvases

List every .klypix or .any canvas file in the vault, showing card and connection counts for each.

Instructions

List all .klypix / .any canvas files in the vault, with card and connection counts.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_canvases"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the scope ('all .klypix / .any canvas files in the vault') and the included output details ('card and connection counts'). 'List' clearly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation.

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 fully captures what the tool does without any filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes meaning: 'List all', the file types, the vault scope, and the counts.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies what files are listed, the scope, and the key output contents. There are no missing details that would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior rather than parameters, and no parameter explanation is needed because the input schema is empty.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('all .klypix / .any canvas files in the vault'), and the expected output ('with card and connection counts'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like read_canvas or create_canvas, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with search_canvases.

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 implies when to use this tool: whenever an agent needs a full inventory of canvas files in the vault. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or describe how it differs from search_canvases, so the usage guidance is only implicit rather than explicit.

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