excalidraw-mcp-obsidian

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

import_scene

Import Excalidraw scenes from .excalidraw JSON or raw data into Obsidian, choosing to replace or merge the current diagram.

Instructions

Import elements from a .excalidraw JSON file or raw JSON data

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": {
      "mode": "<mode>"
    },
    "name": "import_scene"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`mode`	Yes
`filePath`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose that the 'mode' parameter can replace or merge elements, potentially overwriting the current scene. No side effects, permissions, or error behavior are mentioned.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core function.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity with a required enum and potential destructive behavior, the description is too terse. It doesn't explain the replace/merge modes, output, or impact on existing elements, making it insufficient for correct tool invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It hints that filePath or data are alternative sources, but it doesn't explain the meaning of the 'mode' parameter or formats expected for data/filePath.

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?

The description clearly states the tool imports elements from a .excalidraw JSON file or raw JSON data, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_from_obsidian and other element operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 such as import_from_obsidian or create_element. It lacks context on recommended scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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