Generate Excalidraw-compatible diagram scene JSON from structured specifications or a lightweight DSL, with optional layout overrides and output paths for editable diagrams.
Generate an Excalidraw-compatible diagram scene JSON from a structured specification or DSL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text_dsl | No | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| output_path | No | ||
| specification | No | ||
| layout_overrides | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain whether files are written to disk via output_path, what overwrite=true does, whether generation is non-destructive by default, or any side effects, permissions, or error behavior.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the under-specification seen in other dimensions.
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 five-parameter generation tool with no annotations and an output schema, this description is too thin. It omits input-mode selection rules, file output behavior, overwrite semantics, and layout override behavior, leaving an agent without enough context to call it safely and correctly.
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%, and the description only vaguely maps to two of the five parameters by mentioning a structured specification or DSL. It adds no meaning for overwrite, output_path, or layout_overrides, leaving most parameters undocumented in both schema and description.
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 names a specific verb and resource: generating an Excalidraw-compatible diagram scene JSON from a structured specification or DSL. That is clear enough to distinguish it from layout/export/update siblings in broad terms, though it does not explicitly contrast those alternatives.
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?
It implies two input modes, structured specification or text DSL, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sketchwright_layout_diagram, sketchwright_export_diagram, sketchwright_validate_diagram, or sketchwright_update_diagram. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.