Convert Mermaid diagrams into editable draw.io shapes with automatic layout. Supports ER, sequence, class, state, gantt, mindmap, and git diagrams.
Construye desde Mermaid (ER, secuencia, clases, estados, gantt, mindmap, git). draw.io lo convierte en shapes nativos editables y los acomoda.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| name | No | diagrama | |
| out_dir | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that Mermaid is converted into native editable draw.io shapes and arranged, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects such as file creation, out_dir behavior, or whether the result is returned or written.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two sentences that both earn their place: one for the input format and supported types, and one for the conversion behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to be more complete. It fails to explain output behavior, the purpose of out_dir, or what the agent should expect after invocation, making it insufficient for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly clarifies that 'code' is Mermaid source, but it provides no meaning for 'name' or 'out_dir', leaving key parameters unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Construye' and the specific resource 'desde Mermaid', listing the supported diagram types. It also differentiates from sibling tools like build_diagram and build_from_example by specifying the Mermaid source format and the draw.io conversion behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when the input is Mermaid code and lists supported diagram types, giving reasonable context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria for when to choose build_diagram or build_from_example instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.