Update any property of an existing canvas node by ID, such as position, text, or color, within an Obsidian vault canvas.
Update any property of an existing canvas node by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| url | No | ||
| file | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| label | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| node_id | Yes | ||
| canvas_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation intent is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral detail about how partial updates work; in particular, it does not clarify whether omitted properties (which default to null in the schema) are preserved or reset to null. This is a critical gap for a tool that says 'any property' can be updated.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It communicates the core operation efficiently. It loses a point because the brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with 11 parameters and ambiguous null-update semantics.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (11 params, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description is incomplete. It does not address how to update specific fields without affecting others, what the required canvas_path refers to, or what happens when optional properties are omitted. An agent would need to infer critical invocation details from the schema alone.
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 description coverage is 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter semantics. It only indicates the node is located by ID and that any property can be updated, without explaining what x, y, url, file, text, color, label, width, height represent, or noting the required canvas_path. This adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Update'), resource ('canvas node'), and target scope ('any property', 'by ID'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_canvas_node, remove_canvas_nodes, and update_canvas_edge by framing it as updating an existing node rather than adding or removing one.
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?
The phrase 'existing canvas node' implies use on nodes that already exist, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over add_canvas_node or remove_canvas_nodes. No alternatives are named, and no conditions or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer routing from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.