Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sketchy-mcp

sketchy-mcp

by ddkbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Sketch a scene

sketch

Renders a hand-drawn, interactive diagram from a line-based scene spec so you can illustrate code architecture, wiring, or step-by-step walkthroughs in chat.

Instructions

Draw a whole scene and show it. One element per line: title | subtitle | dir right|down group [in ] [@icon] [(cylinder|person|note|circle|rounded|text)] [in ] [!accent|!muted] [file=] [~ hover text] -> [label] [!accent|!muted] (--> dashed, <-> both ends) label [.] (photo region with spaces: label .: ) image step : | <ids to highlight; edges as a->b> part [key=value] [caption] (types and pins: search_parts) wire <part.pin> -> <part.pin> [red|black|blue|green|yellow|orange|purple|gray|white] Icons: @globe, @database, @server (Lucide) or @simple-icons:react. Ids: letters, digits, _ or -.

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": {
      "scene": "<scene>"
    },
    "name": "sketch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sceneYesThe scene, one element per line

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.8

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
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. It says the tool draws and shows a scene, but does not state whether it replaces or appends to an existing scene, what the returned result is, whether errors are surfaced visually, or whether any permissions or limits apply.

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 dense but efficient: it front-loads the core action and then provides the grammar with no filler. It could be slightly easier to scan with clearer line grouping or a compact example, but every element appears to serve the DSL specification.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The DSL syntax is well covered, which is the main complexity for this tool. However, for a complex visual/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not explain result behavior, error handling, or provide a minimal complete example, leaving some invocation-context gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema only defines one string parameter, but the description adds substantial meaning by fully specifying the scene DSL: title/subtitle/dir directives, groups, nodes, edges, labels, images, steps, parts, wires, icons, and ID rules. This is far beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Draw a whole scene and show it." That clearly distinguishes it from search/lookup siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast with get_view or explain when sketching is preferred over other rendering-related tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the grammar, and the description helpfully points to search_parts for part types/pins and find_image for image IDs. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no direct comparison with sibling tools beyond those two references.

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