Excaliself

Check a drawing edit

get_drawing_edit

Read-only

Checks whether a team member applied a proposed drawing edit, waiting up to 25 seconds for their decision so you can confirm the outcome before continuing.

Instructions

Reports whether the member applied an edit from edit_drawing. While it is still pending, waits up to 25 seconds for their decision.

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": {
      "editId": "<editId>"
    },
    "name": "get_drawing_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`editId`	Yes	The editId edit_drawing returned.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.9.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: this call blocks, waiting up to 25 seconds while the edit is pending, which is critical for an agent's timeout and sequencing decisions. It stops short of saying what is returned when the 25 seconds elapse.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler; the purpose comes first and the blocking-wait behavior follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return semantics, and it only says it "reports whether" the edit was applied. The possible outcomes (applied, rejected, still pending after the wait) are not enumerated, leaving the agent to guess how to interpret a timeout result.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema describes it fully ("The editId edit_drawing returned"), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format, validation, or lifecycle detail about editId beyond what the schema states, which matches the baseline for 100% 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("reports whether the member applied an edit") and explicitly ties the tool to its sibling edit_drawing as the source of the edit. No other sibling in the list performs a status check, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The reference to "an edit from edit_drawing" makes the workflow position clear: call this after edit_drawing. It does not state explicit alternatives or when not to call it, but for a single-purpose polling tool the context is sufficient.

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