Learn the JSON spec format for build_diagram to structure diagram definitions correctly. Use this reference to validate and create valid specifications for the advancedrawio server.
Formato del spec JSON de build_diagram.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only or informational reference by saying 'Formato...' but does not state that explicitly, nor does it disclose what the tool actually returns or how it behaves. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.
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 extremely short and has no fluff, which is good for conciseness. However, it is under-specified to the point of being almost a bare label; it offers no introductory phrase or structured context that would help an agent consume it.
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?
With no parameters and an output schema present, the missing return-format detail is acceptable. Still, the description lacks practical context such as when to open this reference, how it relates to build_diagram, and what kind of information the reference contains beyond a vague 'spec JSON format.' It is minimally viable but not complete.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter detail, which is fine because no parameters exist and the schema trivially covers them.
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 identifies the subject (the JSON spec format used by build_diagram) but never states an action or verb: it reads as a label rather than a tool purpose. It is somewhat distinguishable from siblings because it names build_diagram, but an agent cannot tell whether this tool returns, describes, validates, or edits that format.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus any alternative. The name and sibling list suggest it is a companion to build_diagram, but the description does not say 'consult this before calling build_diagram' or mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.