visio-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Add a page

visio_add_page

Add a new page to a Visio document. Optionally set the page name and choose the target document, defaulting to the active one.

Instructions

Add a page to a document.

Args: name: Name for the new page. Visio picks one if you omit it. document: File name or 1-based index. Omit for the active document.

Tool call template

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": "visio_add_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`document`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`page`	No
`action`	Yes
`detail`	Yes
`affected`	No
`document`	No
`shape_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description accurately reflects a mutating action, and there is no contradiction with the annotations, but it adds little beyond the basic fact that a page is added. No additional side effects or limitations are disclosed.

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 very concise and well structured, with a one-sentence purpose followed by clear per-argument explanations. No unnecessary details are included.

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?

For such a simple tool, the description provides enough context to use it correctly, including defaults and how to specify the target document. It does not discuss output or persistence, but those are not critical for this action.

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?

With zero schema-level descriptions, the prose fully compensates by explaining both parameters: the name is optional with an auto-generated fallback, and the document accepts a file name or 1-based index with the active document as the default.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a page to a document.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_shape or delete_shape.

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?

The description explains how to target a document and how the page name behaves, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as adding shapes or working with existing pages.

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