Skip to main content
Glama

Diagrams MCP

by io.github.mskry

search_nodes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search for diagram nodes by keyword across all providers and services.

For targeted browsing when you know the provider, use list_providers -> list_services -> list_nodes instead.

Args: query: Search term (case-insensitive substring match).

Returns: List of matching nodes with keys: node, provider, service, import, alias_of (optional). Sorted by relevance: exact match first, then prefix, then substring.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses search behavior (case-insensitive substring match), result ordering (exact match, prefix, substring), and return keys. Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent hints, so this extra behavioral detail is valuable and not redundant.

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 well-structured with clear sections for the main behavior, usage guidance, parameter, and return value. No sentence is wasted, and the length is appropriate for the information conveyed.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return format. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully by defining the query parameter as a 'case-insensitive substring match,' adding meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource ('diagram nodes') and scope ('across all providers and services'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_nodes by emphasizing cross-provider search.

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?

Explicitly states when to use an alternative: 'For targeted browsing when you know the provider, use list_providers -> list_services -> list_nodes instead.' This clearly contrasts the search tool with the targeted browsing workflow.

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

All Diagrams MCP 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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct purpose: browsing (list_providers, list_services, list_nodes, search_nodes), equivalence lookup (find_equivalent, list_categories), and rendering in three different syntaxes (render_diagram, render_mermaid, render_plantuml). No two tools overlap in function, and descriptions clearly differentiate when to use each.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase snake_case: list_* for browsing, render_* for output generation, find_equivalent, and search_nodes. The pattern is predictable and aids agent understanding.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped: 4 browsing tools, 2 equivalence tools, and 3 rendering tools cover the diagram creation workflow without bloat. Each tool earns its place.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface supports the full workflow: discover providers/services/nodes, search for equivalent roles, and render diagrams in Python, Mermaid, or PlantUML. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.

Resources