Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Zovo Use Case Diagram

by io.github.theluckystrike
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check use case diagram text

check_use_case_diagram
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user wants use case diagram text checked without a drawing, for example "which use cases have no actor?" or "check my use case diagram". Takes the same diagram text as make_use_case_diagram. Returns ready true or false; when a line breaks the grammar (also unknown names, relations between the wrong kinds of element, or a generalization cycle), the line number, the token and the reason; otherwise the elements with their relation counts, actors with no use case (an actor counts when it or an actor it specializes has an association), use cases no actor reaches (directly, through include, or as an extension of a reached use case), and include/extend cycles. Does not draw the diagram or make files.

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": {
      "diagram": "<diagram>"
    },
    "name": "check_use_case_diagram"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
diagramYesThe use case diagram in this line grammar, one statement per line, up to 40,000 characters: actor Name | actor "Long name" as A | usecase Name | usecase "Text" as UC1 | system "Name" { ... } (use case lines inside belong to that system; not nested) | A -- UC1 (association) | UC1 ..> UC2 : include | UC3 ..> UC1 : extend | Admin --|> User (actor generalization) | note UC1: text | # comment. Declare each actor and use case before or after use. Example: "actor Customer\nsystem \"Shop\" {\nusecase \"Place order\" as Order\nusecase Pay\n}\nCustomer -- Order\nOrder ..> Pay : include".

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorYes
notesYes
readyYes
shownNo
countsNo
limitsYes
grammarYes
analysisNo
elementsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes well beyond that by detailing the response contract (ready true/false), the failure payload (line number, token, reason) and the three error categories. It also discloses the non-obvious counting semantics, e.g. an actor counts as having a use case when it or an actor it specializes has an association, which an agent could not derive from any structured field.

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?

It is one dense paragraph, but the trigger condition is front-loaded followed by the return contract and then the exclusions, so a reader can stop early if needed. The parenthetical qualifiers on actor reachability are long but each carries real semantic weight, with essentially no filler.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description still conveys what matters for interpreting results: success flag, structured error locations, orphan analysis and cycle detection. For a single-parameter, read-only validator this covers everything an agent needs to call it and act on the answer.

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% and the single 'diagram' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the line grammar and an example. The description only adds that the text format matches make_use_case_diagram, which is a small pointer rather than new syntax detail, so the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: checking use case diagram text without drawing it. It distinguishes itself from its only sibling by explicitly stating it takes the same diagram text as make_use_case_diagram but 'Does not draw the diagram or make files.'

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when the user wants use case diagram text checked without a drawing') plus two concrete example queries, and it names the sibling tool whose input format it shares. The closing sentence explicitly excludes the alternative behavior (drawing, file creation), leaving no inference needed.

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

All Zovo Use Case Diagram toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources