Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sketchy-mcp

sketchy-mcp

by ddkbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Open file link

open_link

Opens a file referenced in a hand-drawn diagram directly in the user's editor, letting viewers jump from the sketch to the relevant source or document.

Instructions

Opens a file from the drawing in the user's editor. Used by the viewer.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "open_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.8

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses that the file opens in the user's editor. It says nothing about whether this has side effects, what happens if no editor is registered, whether the url must be a local path or a URL, or what the call returns on success/failure.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence ('Used by the viewer') is of dubious value to a caller, but the overall size is appropriate rather than bloated.

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?

A one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to cover url format, side effects, and failure modes, and it covers none of them. What is present is accurate but far short of what an agent needs to invoke it reliably.

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?

The single parameter 'url' has 0% schema description coverage and only a maxLength constraint. The description never clarifies the expected format (file-relative path vs file:// URI vs http link), which is the key ambiguity for a tool literally named open_link.

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?

"Opens a file from the drawing in the user's editor" states a specific verb (opens) and resource (a file from the drawing), and the title 'Open file link' reinforces it. It does not distinguish this tool from likely-adjacent siblings such as find_image or locate, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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?

"Used by the viewer" describes who calls the tool rather than when an agent should choose it; that reads as an internal implementation note. There is no guidance on when to use this versus locate/find_image, nor any prerequisite about the user needing an editor available.

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