Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
math-board

math-board

by smdesai27
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Update board

board_update
Destructive

Adds, moves, and edits equations, shapes, and artifacts on a shared math blackboard as step-by-step lesson steps; revision checks prevent overwriting conflicting changes.

Instructions

Draw on the shared blackboard; each call that adds items is one lesson step the learner watches being drawn. Coordinates: the home board and every chapter are 1200x800, origin top-left, y down; items with chapter use that chapter's local coordinates. Text y is the baseline; equation, rect, ellipse and artifact x,y is the top-left. baseRevision = the revision from your last board_read or board_update (compare-and-swap); on a conflict, board_read again and re-apply your change to the current board, never retry blindly. Invalid input is rejected with the reason and nothing is applied. Each result lists layout warnings (overlaps, items outside their chapter, failed renders): fix them with items. Items also take id (short, e.g. "eq1"), z, opacity, dash, chapter, step, reveal, duration, order. Formats and examples: board_docs.

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": {
      "baseRevision": "<baseRevision>"
    },
    "name": "board_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
checkNo
clearNo
itemsNo
sceneNo
titleNo
cameraNo{chapter}, a board rect, or null = home
chaptersNo
equationsNo
baseRevisionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/destructive profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior: rejected input applies nothing, results list layout warnings (overlaps, out-of-chapter items, failed renders) fixable via `items`, and compare-and-swap revision semantics. It stops short of saying a delete or `clear` erases content irreversibly, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The scoping statement and coordinate rules are front-loaded, and the sentences are information-dense rather than padded. It is long, but the parameter count and nesting justify the length; a few clauses (item attribute list) could be trimmed since the schema carries them.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter, deeply nested, destructive tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the essentials: how to target revisions safely, what happens on invalid input, what the result contains (warnings), and where to find formats. Remaining gaps (return payload shape, clear/check semantics) are minor relative to what is supplied.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 11% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and largely does: it defines the 1200x800 coordinate system, origin and y direction, text baseline vs. top-left anchoring for equation/rect/ellipse/artifact, and names the shared item attributes (id, z, opacity, dash, chapter, step, reveal, duration, order). It leaves `check`, `clear`, `scene.mode`, `chapters`, `camera`, and equation op semantics unexplained, delegating formats to board_docs.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Draw on the shared blackboard") and adds a semantic framing — one lesson step per call that adds items — that no sibling tool shares. An agent can distinguish this mutating tool from board_read, board_snapshot, board_save, or board_docs 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?

Gives explicit procedural guidance: baseRevision comes from your last board_read or board_update, and on conflict you must board_read again and re-apply rather than retry blindly. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over board_save or board_open, so sibling selection is only partially covered.

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