Retrieve the current BPMN diagram state, including browser modeler edits, by diagram ID; optionally include normalized BPMN XML for review or validation.
Inspect the latest BPMN diagram state, including edits saved from the browser modeler
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diagramId | Yes | The diagram ID | |
| includeXml | No | Include the complete normalized BPMN XML |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that it retrieves the latest state including browser modeler edits, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, what the return format is, or whether there are side effects.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though it could be slightly more structured by naming alternatives or return behavior.
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?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what inspection returns, such as diagram state, element list, or the effect of includeXml on the response, and that it is a read-only operation. It only states the purpose, leaving key behavioral and return context missing.
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 100%, so the schema already documents diagramId and includeXml. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Inspect) and resource (BPMN diagram state) and adds the scope of including browser modeler edits. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like inspect_bpmn_modeler or list_bpmn_elements, so an agent must infer which inspection tool is appropriate.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. The phrase 'including edits saved from the browser modeler' hints at a context but does not tell the agent when this tool is preferable to inspect_bpmn_modeler or list_bpmn_elements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.