Delete all widgets on the canvas, including nested children, to reset the app layout.
Delete every widget directly under MainContainer. Cascades to nested children.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "clear_canvas"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses cascading behavior and scope (MainContainer), which is helpful. However, it does not indicate irreversibility, permissions, side effects on related data, or whether the container itself persists. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden but leaves gaps.
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 clear sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the action and scope, making it efficient and scannable.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose and scope. It could explicitly state that deletion is irreversible or that MainContainer remains, but it is largely complete given the tool's simplicity.
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?
With no parameters, the description adds value by clarifying scope and cascading behavior beyond the empty schema. The additional context (MainContainer, nested children) fully compensates for the lack of parameters.
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 it deletes widgets under MainContainer with cascading to nested children. It uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (widgets under MainContainer), differentiating it from siblings like delete_widgets or delete_app.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_widgets for specific widgets). It lacks preconditions, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.