NetMap — Network Diagram MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

map_add_sticky

Add a sticky note to a network diagram map. Specify text, optional coordinates and color, and receive the new sticky's ID.

Instructions

Add a sticky note to the map. Returns the new sticky id.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "map_add_sticky"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`x`	No	Canvas X position (optional)
`y`	No	Canvas Y position (optional)
`text`	Yes	Note text
`color`	No	Hex color, e.g. #fbbf24 (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It states that the tool creates a sticky and returns the new ID, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any prerequisites, error conditions, or behavior when optional coordinates are omitted, leaving some gaps.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, using two short sentences. There is no filler; every word adds value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly includes the return value (new sticky id). However, it lacks information about default placement, interactions with the canvas, or any preconditions. For a simple add tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline for complete schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('a sticky note to the map'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like map_add_node. It also mentions the return value, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as map_add_node or map_update_sticky. The description provides no context about use cases or exclusions.

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