Remove all shapes from the canvas to start fresh or prepare for new visualizations.
Remove all shapes from the canvas
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": "clear_canvas"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Remove all shapes' indicates a destructive mutation, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects on other canvas elements. The description is minimal and lacks crucial context for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature (implied by 'Remove'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after clearing (e.g., confirmation, error handling, or return values), which is critical for understanding the tool's behavior in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, but this is appropriate given the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the parameter-less case.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove all shapes from the canvas' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('all shapes from the canvas'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_shapes' (which likely deletes specific shapes) by emphasizing the comprehensive 'all shapes' scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when clearing the entire canvas, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_shapes' or 'create_frame'. It provides some context through the action described, but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.