Excalidraw & document parsing API with machine-native x402 micropayments. Agents pay per call with no signup. Free tier available. OpenAPI spec published; LLM-readable docs at https://nanoempireai.com/llms.txt Pricing: free 5/day · basic $0.005/call · premium $0.05/call unlimited
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools are mostly distinct because they produce different outputs: a NetworkX DAG versus an executable A2A Swarm template. Some ambiguity remains because both involve parsing diagrams, and it is unclear whether decompose_diagram consumes the DAG produced by parse_excalidraw.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: decompose_diagram and parse_excalidraw. The verbs and nouns clearly describe the operation and target.
Two tools is borderline for a parser server; each tool seems purposeful, but the overall surface is quite thin. It fits the small-scope feel of the server but leaves little flexibility.
The server offers two core conversions, but there is no obvious connection between the parsed DAG and the decomposition step, and no way to inspect or further process intermediate results. Other diagram formats or template validation are also not covered.
decompose_diagramCInspectParses a diagram and decomposes it into an executable A2A Swarm task template.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only says 'parses' and 'decomposes,' leaving unclear what input content is expected, what the output looks like, whether the operation has side effects, and what constitutes a valid diagram. Minimal behavioral detail is disclosed.
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 only one sentence and is front-loaded with the core action. There is no filler or extraneous text, which makes it memorable and succinct. It does sacrifice useful detail for conciseness, but it is well-structured for its length.
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?
Given there is no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage for the required parameter, the description is incomplete. It defines the high-level purpose but does not supply necessary contextual details like input requirements, format, or relationship to parse_excalidraw. An agent needs more context to make a reliable call.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the only parameter, content, is simply a string. The description references 'a diagram' but does not explain that content must contain diagram data or in what format. The agent gets no extra semantic meaning to invoke the tool confidently.
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 states a specific action and product: 'Parses a diagram and decomposes it into an executable A2A Swarm task template.' It identifies the resource (diagram) and the output type clearly. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from parse_excalidraw, but it is not a tautology.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use the tool versus the sibling parse_excalidraw, and no mention of input qualifications or alternatives. An agent must infer entirely from the tool name and the vague phrase 'diagram.' This leaves the intended usage underdetermined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
parse_excalidrawBInspectParses Excalidraw JSON or Markdown diagrams into a validated NetworkX DAG.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | ||
| content | Yes | Raw Excalidraw JSON or Markdown string |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful behavior by stating the output is a 'validated NetworkX DAG', but it does not describe error handling, invalid input behavior, or auto-detection semantics. Since parsing is naturally read-only, the lack of side-effect risk is less concerning than it would be for a mutation tool.
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, focused sentence that contains no filler and directly conveys input and output types. It is well structured and easily readable by an agent.
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 simple two-parameter tool, the description names the input format and output representation clearly. But it does not fully specify the format parameter's behavior, especially 'auto', and it leaves ambiguity around malformed input handling. Since there is no output schema or annotations, another sentence of guidance would make it complete.
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?
The description confirms that 'content' can hold Excalidraw JSON or Markdown and that the result is a graph, which partially explains the parameter's purpose. However, it does not explain the semantics of 'format', especially the 'auto' enum value, nor what happens when 'format' is omitted. With 50% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for what the schema lacks.
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 states a clear verb and resource: it 'Parses Excalidraw JSON or Markdown diagrams into a validated NetworkX DAG.' This makes the tool's specific conversion purpose explicit. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'decompose_diagram', so full sibling differentiation is missing.
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?
The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus 'decompose_diagram' or any other alternative. It describes what the parser does but leaves the agent to infer the appropriate selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
