excalidraw-architect-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

export_diagram

Convert an .excalidraw diagram to SVG or PNG image directly from the file, bypassing the need for a browser or Excalidraw app.

Instructions

Export an .excalidraw file to SVG or PNG image.

Converts an existing .excalidraw diagram into a portable image file without requiring a browser or the Excalidraw application.

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": {
      "input_path": "<input_path>",
      "output_path": "<output_path>"
    },
    "name": "export_diagram"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scale`	No	Resolution multiplier for PNG output (default 2.0 = 2×). Has no effect on SVG output.
`format`	No	Output format - "svg" (default) or "png". PNG export requires the cairosvg package (``pip install cairosvg``).	svg
`input_path`	Yes	Path to the source .excalidraw file.
`output_path`	Yes	Destination file path (e.g., "./arch.svg" or "./arch.png").

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.3.0May 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the conversion process and that no external app is needed, but does not disclose if the input file is modified, error handling, or permission requirements. Basic but not thorough.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core function. No excess words or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values are assumed documented. The description covers the primary use case and parameters adequately. Slight missing detail about failure modes, but sufficient for a conversion 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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal new information beyond the schema, mainly restating the purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action (export), the resource format (.excalidraw), and the output formats (SVG/PNG). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_diagram or modify_diagram.

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?

The description implies usage for generating portable images without browser/Excalidraw, but does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when not to use (e.g., for editing). It provides implicit context but lacks clear directives.

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