Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Easel

Easel

by nemodleo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

read_board

Read a board's source HTML exactly as stored before editing it, so you can inspect the current markup and make accurate changes.

Instructions

Read a board's source HTML exactly as stored in the file. Use it before editing a board.

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": {
      "file": "<file>"
    },
    "name": "read_board"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYesBoard file name, e.g. scr-01.html

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does convey that this is a pure read of raw on-disk source rather than a rendered/parsed representation, which is useful. It says nothing about behavior when the file is missing, encoding/size limits, or whether the read is cached.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core behavior stated first and the usage cue second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back (source HTML as stored) and when to call it. Only edge-case behavior (missing file, large boards) is left unaddressed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'file' parameter is documented with a concrete example ('scr-01.html'), so the schema does the work. The description adds no path/format semantics beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a board's source HTML'), and the phrase 'exactly as stored in the file' distinguishes it from a rendered view like screenshot. It doesn't explicitly name which sibling it contrasts with, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use it before editing a board' gives an explicit trigger condition, which is more than most read tools offer. It does not name the alternative (e.g., screenshot for rendered output, save_snapshot for versioning), so there is no explicit exclusion.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools