Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

CalderFlow

by com.calderflow
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

create_erd_chart

Create an entity-relationship diagram (database schema / data model) with typed fields, PK/FK markers, and crow's-foot relationships. Entity names UPPER_SNAKE_CASE, 3-8 focused fields each.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "entities": "<entities>"
    },
    "name": "create_erd_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesChart title shown in the app and share page.
entitiesYesEntities (tables). 2-8 is ideal.
relationshipsNoRelationships with cardinality.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the artifact's structure and content conventions (typed fields, PK/FK markers, crow's-foot relationships, 3-8 focused fields), which is meaningful context about what will be created, but it says nothing about the response, persistence, permissions, or side effects of creation.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the tool's identity front-loaded and the authoring conventions following immediately. Every phrase adds information; nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the diagram content well but leaves the return value, persistence behavior, and any failure modes unstated. An agent can construct the input but cannot anticipate what comes back after creation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including nested entity and relationship fields. The description adds only marginal guidance beyond the schema (UPPER_SNAKE_CASE entity names, 3-8 focused fields each), with the schema itself already stating 'Letters/digits/underscores only' and '2-8 is ideal' for entities.

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 gives a specific verb ('Create') and a highly specific resource ('entity-relationship diagram (database schema / data model)'), then enumerates the distinguishing features: typed fields, PK/FK markers, and crow's-foot relationships. No sibling tool (flowchart, chevron, funnel, timeline, lifecycle) produces this artifact, so an agent can identify it unambiguously.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over create_flowchart or the other chart tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only guidance is formatting-oriented (naming convention, field count), which tells the agent how to author the payload rather than when the tool is the right selection.

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

All CalderFlow toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources