Skip to main content
Glama

CodePic

by io.github.abelce

Create from Template

create_from_template

Create a new CodePic diagram from a predefined template. Requires API Key authentication. Returns a public view URL and edit URL.

STRICT USAGE RULE — READ BEFORE CALLING: Only call this tool when the user has explicitly asked to use a template. Explicit signals include phrases like: "use a template", "from template", "用模板", "从模板创建", "list templates and pick one", or the user directly naming/selecting a template slug.

If the user merely describes a diagram they want (e.g. "draw an A/B test flowchart", "帮我画一个登录流程", "给我做一个系统架构图"), DO NOT call this tool. Call create_diagram instead and build the diagram from the user's description. Never silently substitute a template for a described diagram — the user will get a generic result that does not match what they asked for.

When responding to the user, present the returned URL as a clickable markdown link (e.g. [Open in CodePic →](URL)) so the user can click it directly in their AI client (Cursor / Claude / etc.).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoDocument name (defaults to template name)
slugYesTemplate slug (e.g. 'flowchart', 'erd', 'kanban'). Call list_templates to see all.
localeNoLanguage for template content (default: en)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements, return URLs, and presentation expectations. It doesn't cover edge cases like invalid slugs or quota consumption, but covers the key behavioral aspects needed for correct invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a bold usage rule and clear sections, but is slightly verbose. The strict usage rule could be tightened without losing value, though the structure helps readability.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a creation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the tool's purpose, usage conditions, authentication, return values, and how to present results. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 all three parameters are already well-documented in the schema (including slug examples and reference to list_templates). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score.

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 creates a new CodePic diagram from a predefined template, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the template source and the explicit usage rule that differentiates it from create_diagram.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use criteria, naming create_diagram as the alternative and giving concrete example phrases that signal template usage versus diagram description. This is exemplary guidance that leaves no ambiguity.

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

All CodePic toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: create, get, update, list templates, and get shape documentation. No overlapping or ambiguous functions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (create_diagram, get_diagram, get_shape_docs, list_templates, update_diagram), with consistent use of underscores and action-first naming.

Tool Count5/5

The tool count (5 listed, though count says 6) is well within the typical 3–15 range for this domain, providing a focused set without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness3/5

The set covers create, read, and update operations, but lacks a delete tool and a way to list all diagrams (only templates are listed). This leaves gaps in the lifecycle coverage, though the core diagram creation workflow is supported.

Resources