Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sketchy-mcp

sketchy-mcp

by ddkbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Save export

save_export

Saves a drawing export as SVG, PNG, or Excalidraw for viewer use, enabling you to preserve or share the rendered diagram.

Instructions

Saves an SVG, PNG or Excalidraw export of the drawing. 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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "save_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
textNo
base64No

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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only names formats. It does not say where the export goes, whether it overwrites an existing file, whether the caller must supply text vs base64, or what a successful call returns. 'Used by the viewer' is context, not behavioral disclosure.

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 zero filler. The brevity is appropriate in form, though it edges toward under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

This is a write-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters. For that complexity level the description leaves the agent without the information needed to invoke it correctly, such as which payload field to use for which format.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains that 'name' is the required destination identifier (max 120 chars), nor what 'text' versus 'base64' payloads mean or how they relate to the SVG/PNG/Excalidraw formats it mentions.

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 verb and resource ('Saves an ... export of the drawing') and names the supported formats (SVG, PNG, Excalidraw), which lets an agent tell it apart from viewer-side siblings like get_view. It stops short of saying how the format is chosen or what artifact is produced, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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' gives a hint of context but no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as get_view or download_model. An agent has to infer when saving an export is appropriate.

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