Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Azure Diagram MCP Server

Azure Diagram MCP Server

by Jah-yee
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

refresh_diagram

Regenerate infrastructure diagrams by providing updated Python code using the diagrams DSL.

Instructions

Regenerate a diagram from updated code (app-only tool).

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "refresh_diagram"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesPython code using the diagrams package DSL to regenerate a diagram.
filenameNoOptional output filename for the generated diagram (without extension).
timeoutNoTimeout in seconds for diagram generation (1-300).
workspace_dirNoOptional workspace directory for output files.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are empty, so description must bear full burden. It mentions 'regenerate' implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting files), required permissions, failure modes, or dependencies on existing diagrams. Very limited behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and object, includes scope constraint. No wasted words; information density is optimal for a simple tool.

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?

No output schema exists, yet description omits what the tool returns (e.g., file path, success status). Also lacks explanation of the 'app-only' constraint. Given the tool's simplicity, more context on return value and environment assumptions would be expected.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema fields. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it does not enhance parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Regenerate a diagram') and resource ('diagram'), and adds context ('from updated code', 'app-only tool'). It hints at a specific use case compared to sibling 'generate_diagram' but does not explicitly differentiate regeneration from initial generation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_diagram'. The term 'app-only' is ambiguous and does not clarify prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. No exclusion criteria or usage context beyond the name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools