MCP-ADAPTER

drawio_flowchart

Create a linear draw.io flowchart from a list of step labels; labels ending with '?' become decision diamonds. Export as PNG, SVG, or PDF.

Instructions

[draw.io: diagrams (flowcharts, block diagrams, architecture, UML, network) as editable files and PNG/SVG/PDF] Quick linear flowchart from a list of step labels (labels ending with '?' become decision diamonds).

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": {
      "steps": "<steps>"
    },
    "name": "drawio_flowchart"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`steps`	Yes
`title`	No	Flowchart
`direction`	No	TB
`output_file`	No
`export_format`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavior beyond the schema: the '?' suffix rule that turns a step into a decision diamond, plus the note that output is an editable file with PNG/SVG/PDF export. It omits anything about file overwrite behavior, where files are written, or auth requirements.

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?

A tight two-clause sentence: bracketed capability summary first, then the tool-specific behavior. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description answers far less than an agent needs. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but four of five parameters and all usage routing remain undocumented.

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 description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It explains the 'steps' semantics (labels, '?' rule) and hints at export format (PNG/SVG/PDF), but 'title', 'direction', and 'output_file' get no meaning at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Quick linear flowchart from a list of step labels') and adds a concrete construction rule (labels ending with '?' become decision diamonds), so an agent knows exactly what artifact is produced. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling drawio_create_diagram, which appears to be the generic entry point.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description says what the tool builds but never says when to pick it over drawio_create_diagram or drawio_codec, nor what preconditions apply. No exclusions, no alternative routing, no context.

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