excalidraw-architect-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

kg_render_around

Render a service and its surrounding dependencies up to a specified depth, choosing downstream, upstream, or both directions, to produce an Excalidraw architecture diagram.

Instructions

Render a service plus everything within depth hops of it.

direction: "downstream" (its dependencies), "upstream" (its dependents), or "both".

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": {
      "service_id": "<service_id>",
      "depth": "<depth>",
      "output_path": "<output_path>"
    },
    "name": "kg_render_around"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`depth`	Yes
`theme`	No	default
`direction`	No	both
`graph_path`	No	.claude/architecture.md
`service_id`	Yes
`output_path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.3Jun 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions direction parameter but does not disclose side effects (e.g., file creation/modification), permissions, or return format. The output schema exists but description does not leverage it.

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?

The description is very short and front-loaded with purpose. However, it could be more structured to include parameter summaries. Two sentences with backtick formatting are clean.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 6 parameters (3 required) and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how 'depth' and 'hops' work, nor the output behavior. Incomplete for a tool with moderate complexity.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% — the description only explains the 'direction' parameter values. Other 5 parameters (service_id, depth, output_path, theme, graph_path) are undefined. The description adds minimal meaning beyond 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 clearly states the verb 'Render' and the resource 'a service plus everything within depth hops of it'. It distinguishes from similar siblings like kg_render (probably single service) and kg_render_domain.

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 rendering a service and its neighbors, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings. No alternatives or exclusions mentioned.

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