Veynod

Diagram

diagram

Diagrams and chunked dispatch (spec-diagram-dispatch v3), one tool.

action: list | get | create | edit | dispatch | submit | ci | review |
triptych | queue | queue_check | merge | repoint | propose | increment |
decide | signal | escalate | usage | replay. args is the body of the
matching REST call (POST /v1/diagrams/...): create {diagram_key, title,
chunks, watchers}; submit {files, commit, diff, self_check: [{cmd,
exit_code, output}]} (no CI step when the chunk names no commands); ci {results: {compile,
lint, test}}; review {result, semantic, inconsistent_pane, evidence};
queue_check {result, evidence}; merge {artifact (a commit or doc://; not
needed after an accepted submission), note}; repoint {task_key} (the DONE
task of this chunk that did the work); propose {summary, patch}; increment
{request_text, target_chunk, chunk}; decide {decision} (with change_key);
signal {reason}; escalate {mode: upgrade|spec}; usage {tokens}. Confirming,
freezing, revoking and budgets are people's decisions (console or REST).

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`args`	No
`action`	Yes
`chunk_key`	No
`change_key`	No
`diagram_key`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real workflow context beyond that: actions map to REST bodies, several actions are human-only, and merge requires an artifact only pre-submission. It does not disclose permissions/auth needs, idempotency, side effects of dispatch/merge/decide, or error behavior, which for a 19-action mutation surface is a meaningful gap.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Information density is high and nothing is filler, but the piece is a long telegraphic run-on: a 19-item action list followed by a comma-spliced body of per-action schemas. Front-loading works (purpose first, action list second), yet parsing the nested arg shapes requires re-reading.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the per-action arg bodies are largely covered. However, for a tool this complex, the definition leaves action selection, the top-level key parameters, and the safety/side-effect profile of each mutating action unaddressed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the whole burden, and it does so for args by spelling out the body shape for create, submit, ci, review, queue_check, merge, repoint, propose, increment, decide, signal, escalate, and usage. The three top-level keys chunk_key, change_key, and diagram_key are never explained, and the 'action' vs 'args' relationship is only implied, so it stops short of full compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (diagrams), the second capability (chunked dispatch, with a spec version), and enumerates all 19 actions, so an agent can tell this is a single multiplexed endpoint for diagram/chunk workflow. It stops short of stating the tool's overall goal in one clause, and the 19-action list blurs the primary purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

There is no guidance on choosing among actions or against the many workflow siblings (propose_document_change, request_human_review, review_task, list_documents). Some conditional hints do exist: 'no CI step when the chunk names no commands', 'not needed after an accepted submission', and 'Confirming, freezing, revoking and budgets are people's decisions (console or REST)', which is a useful when-not. Net: implied usage with a couple of real exclusions.

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

All Veynod 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.