Skip to main content
Glama

Agentic Mermaid

by io.github.adewale

Verify Mermaid diagram

verify
Read-onlyIdempotent

Parse and verify a Mermaid diagram without rendering it. Returns { ok, family, summary, warnings, layout: { bounds, nodes, edges } } for valid diagrams and { ok: false, errors } for parse failures. family is the detected diagram family and summary a one-line description — check them: ok:true only means the diagram is structurally valid, not that it is the kind you intended. Warnings use the layout-rubric codes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesMermaid source.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond annotations by specifying the exact return shape for both success and failure, and it discloses a non-obvious behavioral nuance: ok:true does not guarantee the diagram is the intended type. This is critical for correct use and is not captured by the readOnly/idempotent hints.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: it starts with the primary action, then the return format, and then the key caveat about interpretation. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return values, the distinction between structural validity and intent, and the warning codes. No critical information is missing for an agent to decide when and how to use this tool.

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?

The input schema covers the single parameter 'source' with a description ('Mermaid source'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, hence 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 'Parse and verify a Mermaid diagram without rendering it,' which pairs a specific verb with a resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling render tools by explicitly excluding rendering, making its purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool (verifying without rendering) and provides important guidance on interpreting the ok flag (check family and summary, as ok:true only means structural validity). It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Agentic Mermaid 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: build and mutate are separated by create-vs-edit, describe and verify are separated by semantic-explain-vs-validate, and render_* variants differ by output format. The only potential ambiguity is between execute and build/mutate, but the descriptions explicitly steer users away from execute for straightforward structured edits.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix two conventions: bare verbs (build, describe, execute, mutate, verify) and verb_noun with underscore (describe_sdk, render_ascii, render_png, render_svg). While readable and lower-case throughout, the inconsistency prevents a higher score.

Tool Count5/5

9 tools is well within the 3-15 sweet spot and covers the domain of diagram authoring, editing, inspecting, verifying, and rendering without bloat. Each tool earns its place: build/mutate/execute for editing, describe/verify for analysis, render_* for output, and describe_sdk for schema discovery.

Completeness5/5

The tool set forms a complete lifecycle: create (build), edit (mutate, execute), inspect (describe, verify), and output (render_svg/png/ascii). describe_sdk provides schema discovery so agents can author valid operations. There are no obvious dead ends; even unsupported families are handled gracefully in the broader SDK design.

Resources