read_drawingDescribes a drawing’s shapes, labels, text, arrow connections, containment, and positions so you can understand its contents without parsing raw Excalidraw JSON.
Describes a drawing: its shapes and their labels, text, which shapes arrows connect, and what sits inside what, with positions. Not the raw Excalidraw JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A drawing id from list_drawings or search_drawings. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds meaningful context by characterizing the returned representation as a semantic description rather than raw JSON. With no output schema, that single sentence carries the whole burden of explaining return shape, and it does so well; it omits edge behavior for missing or very large drawings.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary statement of what is returned, then a short exclusion clause. No filler, no restating of the tool name or title.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the essential work of telling the agent what the response contains. Remaining gaps are minor: no mention of failure behavior for an invalid id or of truncation on very large drawings.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the sole parameter's schema text already explains that the id comes from list_drawings or search_drawings. The description adds no further meaning about the id (format, behavior on unknown ids), so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb (describes) and resource (a drawing) and enumerates exactly what is returned: shapes, labels, text, arrow connections, containment, and positions. The closing 'Not the raw Excalidraw JSON' usefully differentiates it from a raw-fetch alternative, though no sibling tool is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the reader infers it is the tool to call when you need a drawing's content. There is no explicit 'use this after list_drawings/search_drawings' routing in the description (that hint lives only in the id parameter's schema text) and no statement of when not to use it, such as for listing or searching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.