mcp-monodraw

by Caryyon

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are largely distinct: create_ascii_art generates, list_diagrams finds, get_diagram_preview and export_diagram provide text output (with slight overlap), export_diagram_json gives structured JSON, and open_in_monodraw launches the app. The difference between preview and export could be ambiguous, but descriptions clarify intent.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (export_diagram, list_diagrams, get_diagram_preview, create_ascii_art). Slight deviations: export_diagram_json has an extra suffix, and open_in_monodraw uses a prepositional phrase, but overall the naming is clear and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is well-scoped for a Monodraw server covering creation, listing, preview, export, and opening. Each tool has a clear purpose and none seem redundant or out of place.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the main workflow: create, discover, preview, export (text/JSON), and open in the app. Missing update/delete operations are acceptable since the tool is focused on generation and export, but a raw file content retrieval tool could be a minor gap.
Average 3.5/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Find' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly disclose that this tool has no side effects. It also omits that the search is recursive by default, as shown in the schema. Without annotations, the description is insufficiently transparent about behavior.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that starts with the core action 'Find all Monodraw diagram files.' It wastes no words and is easily scannable.
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?
The tool is relatively simple, but the description does not specify the return format (e.g., list of file paths) or behavior when no files are found. It omits the recursive default from the schema. Given that no output schema exists, the description leaves gaps for the agent to discover at runtime.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (directory and recursive), covering 100% of parameters. The description's phrase 'in a directory' aligns with the directory parameter but adds no new information. The recursive parameter behavior is not reflected in the description beyond the 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 identifies the tool as a directory search operation for Monodraw diagram files, specifying the exact file extensions (.monopic, .monojson). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools that export, open, preview, or create ASCII art.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, nor does it reference sibling tools like export_diagram. The agent is left to infer appropriate usage solely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Open a file' without explaining side effects, error behavior, or whether the tool requires the Monodraw application to be installed. This leaves the agent unaware of potential issues.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that earns its place. It wastes no words and is immediately understandable, though it may be too brief for richer guidance.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context such as the intended workflow (e.g., opening a diagram file in Monodraw) or any mention of prerequisites. The sibling tools suggest a diagram domain, but the description does not reinforce this.
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?
The schema already documents the filePath parameter with a description matching the tool's purpose, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as path formats, file type constraints, or whether relative paths are supported. 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 states a specific action ('Open a file') and a specific application ('Monodraw'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like export_diagram or list_diagrams, which serve different functions.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be preferable. The description simply states what the tool does without any contextual advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain how content is interpreted, how width is applied, whether style affects non-box types, or what output format is returned. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and lists examples, making it extremely concise and free of waste. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary detail.
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?
The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain return values, parameter interactions (e.g., style with non-box types), or edge cases, leaving the context incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter is described in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the enum and parameter descriptions, so it meets the baseline for schema-heavy tools but adds no additional value.
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 uses the specific verb 'Generate' and identifies the resource 'ASCII art' with explicit types (boxes, flowcharts, tables, trees, sequence diagrams). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_diagram, list_diagrams, open_in_monodraw, and get_diagram_preview, which focus on management and export rather than creation.
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 creation is the primary use case, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, leaving usage context to be inferred from the different verbs in sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion to ASCII text but does not mention whether the original file is modified, how output is delivered (e.g., returned string versus file), or any side effects. This lack of detail goes beyond minimal transparency.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and free of filler content. Every word contributes to defining the tool's function, making it an excellent example of concise, well-structured documentation.
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?
For a simple tool with full schema coverage, the description gives a clear overview. However, it does not specify the output mechanism (e.g., whether the text is returned or written to a file) or clarify the tool's effect on the original file. Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, this leaves some ambiguity for an agent.
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?
The input schema already provides thorough descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-level details. The description's mention of 'ASCII text' gives context that unicode and trimWhitespace are relevant, but the schema already explains them, so the description adds no incremental value here.
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 a specific action (export) on a specific resource (Monodraw diagram) with a specific output format (plain ASCII text). It distinguishes from the sibling export_diagram_json by explicitly mentioning the target format, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 that this tool is for producing plain ASCII text output, especially in contrast to export_diagram_json for JSON output. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions, leaving usage as implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. The word 'preview' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, does not mention error handling, file requirements, or output formatting. It adds minimal behavioral insight beyond the basic function.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. It contains no fluff or redundant phrasing, making it highly efficient.
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?
For a simple tool with two well-documented parameters and a clear purpose, the description is adequate. It does not explain return values in detail, but given the straightforward nature of a text preview and the absence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete. However, it could benefit from a note about line limits or file path expectations.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (filePath and maxLines). The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond saying 'text preview,' which slightly informs the maxLines parameter but does not go beyond what the schema already explains.
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 'Get a text preview of a Monodraw diagram file' clearly uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource (text preview) and object (Monodraw diagram file). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_diagram (export to image), export_diagram_json, and open_in_monodraw, which serve different purposes.
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 quickly viewing diagram content as text, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like export_diagram or open_in_monodraw. There are no exclusions or alternative references, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the core behavior (export as JSON with metadata) but does not explicitly clarify that the operation is read-only or describe the exact structure of the returned JSON. This is adequate for a simple export, but lacks explicit safety reassurances.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output format. There is no redundant or filler language, making it appropriately concise.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient, but it leaves out details about the JSON structure and error conditions. It does not explain what 'full metadata' entails, which might be important for an agent to interpret the returned data.
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?
The only parameter, filePath, has a schema description covering 100% of its purpose (path to .monopic or .monojson file). Since schema coverage is complete, the description adds no additional parameter details, which justifies the baseline score of 3.
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 identifies the verb (Export), resource (Monodraw diagram), and scope (full metadata as structured JSON). It differentiates from the sibling tool 'export_diagram' by specifying the output format and inclusion of metadata, which implies a distinct use case.
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 the tool is for exporting diagrams in JSON format, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'export_diagram' or 'list_diagrams'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-monodraw MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Caryyon/mcp-monodraw/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Caryyon/mcp-monodraw)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-monodraw MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Caryyon/mcp-monodraw/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Caryyon/mcp-monodraw)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Caryyon/mcp-monodraw'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server