AFFiNE MCP Server

Add Native Mindmap Node

add_mindmap_node

Adds a child shape node under a specified parent in an AFFiNE mindmap, optionally before a sibling, and returns the new node ID while persisting hierarchy and layout.

Instructions

Add one native child shape to parentId inside mindmapId. beforeId optionally inserts before a sibling; otherwise append. Returns nodeId. Persists hierarchy and layout together. Maximum 500 nodes, depth 64; shape nodes only.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes
`docId`	Yes
`beforeId`	No
`parentId`	Yes
`mindmapId`	Yes
`workspaceId`	No
`expectedRevision`	No	Optional read_doc revision of this primary document. Reject stale content before writing. Covers document content, not workspace metadata; requires all writers to share one MCP server.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`code`	No
`docId`	No
`error`	No
`nodes`	No
`style`	No
`layout`	No
`locked`	No
`nodeId`	No
`rootId`	No
`details`	No
`causeCode`	No
`mindmapId`	No
`nodeCount`	No
`retryable`	No
`layoutType`	No
`workspaceId`	No
`lockedBySelf`	No
`surfaceBlockId`	No
`lockedByAncestor`	No
`recoveryGuidance`	No
`supportedLayouts`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.10.2Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the readOnly/destructive/idempotent profile. The description adds concrete limits (500 nodes, depth 64), the shape-only restriction, and that hierarchy and layout persist together, though auth/permission behavior is absent.

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?

Four tight sentences; operation and ordering are front-loaded before limits and return details. No filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The output schema covers return values, annotations cover safety, and the description adds limits and layout persistence. It is nearly complete, though it could clarify the role of docId/workspaceId for an agent unfamiliar with the hierarchy.

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?

With only 14% schema description coverage, the description usefully defines beforeId insertion semantics and the parentId/mindmapId relationship. However, required docId and text plus optional workspaceId remain unexplained, so it only partially compensates.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Add one native child shape') and names the exact parent/mindmap scoping. This clearly distinguishes it from update_mindmap_node and reparent_mindmap_node.

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?

Explains beforeId ordering versus append and constrains the operation to shape nodes, but does not state when to prefer this over update/reparent siblings or any when-not conditions.

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

Deploy Server