get_diagramFetch a diagram's raw IR (nodes, groups, edges with their real ids) and its current version. Call this before edit_diagram so your ops reference ids that actually exist and you pass the correct baseVersion. Returns { diagram, version }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diagramId | Yes | The diagram to fetch. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return format { diagram, version } and mentions raw IR with real ids. With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it implies read-only but could explicitly state 'read-only operation'.
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 sentences, zero waste. First sentence states purpose and return, second gives usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 read tool with one parameter, the description fully covers purpose, return, and usage context. No output schema needed as the return shape is described.
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 coverage is 100% (one parameter described). The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema's 'The diagram to fetch.' Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it fetches a diagram's raw IR and version. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings (create_diagram, edit_diagram) by being a read-only precursor.
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?
Explicitly says 'Call this before edit_diagram' and explains why (real ids, baseVersion). No other usage guidance needed; this is precise and actionable.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: create for new diagrams, get for retrieving existing ones, and edit for modifying them. No ambiguity or overlap.
All tool names follow the 'verb_diagram' pattern consistently: create_diagram, edit_diagram, get_diagram, making it easy to predict and remember.
Three tools is slightly thin but appropriate for the focused domain of diagram creation and editing. Each tool encapsulates rich functionality.
The set lacks a tool for listing or deleting diagrams, which would be expected for a complete CRUD surface. Core create/read/update is covered, but missing delete and list are significant gaps.