Zovo Swimlane

Check swimlane process

check_swimlane

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user wants a process with lanes checked without a drawing, for example "check my process for steps that do not reach the end" or "which steps are unreachable". Takes the same lanes, steps and links as make_swimlane. Returns unknown lanes and step ids, duplicate ids, steps not reachable from a start step, steps with no path to an end step, decisions with fewer than 2 outgoing links or unlabeled branches, end steps with outgoing links, and loops (allowed, listed). Draws nothing and makes no files. Up to 12 lanes, 150 steps, 300 links. Does not rewrite or fix the process; do not use it for plain flowcharts without lanes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "lanes": "<lanes>",
      "steps": "<steps>"
    },
    "name": "check_swimlane"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lanes`	Yes	Lane names in display order, 2 to 12, each up to 40 characters, e.g. ["Customer", "Sales", "Warehouse"]. A lane is usually a role, team or system.
`links`	No	Arrows between step ids, up to 300, e.g. [{"from":"s1","to":"s2"},{"from":"s2","to":"s3","label":"yes"}].
`steps`	Yes	Steps, 1 to 150, e.g. [{"id":"s1","lane":"Customer","text":"Place order","kind":"start"},{"id":"s2","lane":"Sales","text":"Credit OK?","kind":"decision"}].

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`loops`	Yes
`notes`	Yes
`ready`	Yes
`shown`	No
`counts`	Yes
`issues`	Yes
`limits`	Yes
`decisions`	Yes
`end_steps`	Yes
`start_steps`	Yes
`unreachable`	Yes
`no_path_to_end`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it draws nothing, makes no files, does not rewrite or fix the process, treats loops as allowed-but-listed, and states hard limits (12 lanes, 150 steps, 300 links). That is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before invoking a validator.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case and examples, then the return contents, then limits and exclusions. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 read-only validator with an output schema, the description covers trigger, inputs, returned findings, limits and exclusions. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 lane, step, link and kind semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description only adds that the inputs are the same shape as make_swimlane, which is useful routing information but not new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('check' a 'process with lanes') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling by saying it works 'without a drawing' and takes 'the same lanes, steps and links as make_swimlane'. An agent can tell it apart from make_swimlane without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger ('when the user wants a process with lanes checked'), two concrete example utterances, and an explicit exclusion ('do not use it for plain flowcharts without lanes'). The alternative (make_swimlane, which draws) is implied by the 'without a drawing' framing.

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

All Zovo Swimlane tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?