Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aris-mcp

aris-mcp

by Knuckles-Team
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Aris Export Canonical Workflow

aris_export_canonical_workflow
Read-onlyIdempotent

Converts an EPC model into the canonical workflow format, extracting steps, flows, digest, source, annex, and losses so agents can build a workflow graph.

Instructions

Convert an EPC model to the canonical workflow (medulla.process.canonical/v1): steps, flows, digest, source, annex and losses. The agent workflow graph is built from this form.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "aris_export_canonical_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aml_b64NoThe same, as base64 bytes.
aml_textNoAn AML export to convert instead.
model_idNoModel GUID: read from the current repository, or picks the model of the given AML (default: its first model).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds some value by exposing a 'losses' output alongside 'digest' and 'annex', which signals that the conversion may be lossy, but it does not explain how input precedence works or what gets omitted from the model.

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 definition is three short clauses with the target format and output fields front-loaded; nothing is padded. The trailing sentence about the agent workflow graph is vague jargon that earns less than its space, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the enumerated return fields are a bonus rather than a necessity, and the safety profile is fully handled by annotations. The genuine gap is input selection: with three optional, mutually substitutable parameters and no stated requirement that at least one be provided, an agent cannot tell how to call it unambiguously from the description alone.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema: it never explains the relationship between aml_b64, aml_text and model_id, nor which one wins when several are supplied, even though all three default to null and none is required.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Convert an EPC model to the canonical workflow'), names the target schema identifier (medulla.process.canonical/v1) and enumerates the resulting shape (steps, flows, digest, source, annex, losses). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the inverse sibling aris_import_canonical_workflow or from aris_export_aml, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 agent workflow graph is built from this form' hints at the downstream purpose, which implies when the conversion is needed. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over aris_import_canonical_workflow or aris_export_aml, and no preconditions or exclusions are given.

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