find_diagramsDeprecated: use find_documents instead; this name is removed on 2027-04-30. It takes the same input as find_documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | How many documents matched. | |
| documents | Yes | The matches, most relevant first. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +{}Input schema / properties / limitRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Max results (default 20).",
- "maximum": 50,
- "minimum": 1,
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / properties / queryRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Only documents whose name contains this text.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / query / descriptionPrevious value: -"Only diagrams whose name contains this text."New value: +"Only documents whose name contains this text."Output schema / properties / count / descriptionPrevious value: -"How many diagrams matched."New value: +"How many documents matched."Output schema / properties / diagramsRemoved value: -{
- "description": "The matches, most relevant first.",
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "id": {
- "description": "The diagram id.",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "library": {
- "description": "Where it lives: \"personal\", or the name of the team whose library holds it.",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "name": {
- "description": "The diagram name.",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "updatedAt": {
- "description": "When it was last saved, as a ms epoch.",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "url": {
- "description": "Link that opens the diagram in the livediagram editor.",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "id",
- "name",
- "updatedAt",
- "library",
- "url"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
-}Output schema / properties / documentsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The matches, most relevant first.",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "The document id.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "library": {
+ "description": "Where it lives: \"personal\", or the name of the team whose library holds it.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "The document name.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "updatedAt": {
+ "description": "When it was last saved, as a ms epoch.",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "description": "Link that opens the document in the livediagram editor.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "updatedAt",
+ "library",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "count",
- "diagrams"
-]New value: +[
+ "count",
+ "documents"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations lack — the deprecation deadline and input parity with find_documents — but says nothing about results or side effects.
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?
Two short sentences, deprecation status front-loaded ahead of the redirect. No filler. The only inefficiency is the misleading title, which isn't part of the description text.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the deprecation notice plus redirect plus removal date cover what an agent needs to decide whether to call it at all. Adequate for a deprecated alias.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The note that it accepts the same input as find_documents is a small helpful pointer even though the schema is empty.
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 never directly states what the tool does; it only declares deprecation and points at find_documents. The name find_diagrams and the parity claim ('takes the same input as find_documents') let an agent infer it finds diagrams, but the title 'Find documents' actively muddies the resource.
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 names the replacement explicitly ('use find_documents instead') and gives the lifecycle condition (removed on 2027-04-30), which is clear enough for routing. It stops short of a full 'use X when / use this when' split, since this tool's only legitimate use is legacy compatibility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.