BPMN Live MCP

inspect_bpmn_modeler

Inspect the current BPMN diagram state behind a live modeler URL using its preview token, optionally returning normalized BPMN XML.

Instructions

Inspect the latest diagram state behind a live bpmn-js modeler URL using its preview token

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": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_bpmn_modeler"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes	The preview token from the modeler URL or open_bpmn_modeler
`includeXml`	No	Include the complete normalized BPMN XML

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this reads the 'latest diagram state' of a *live* modeler session, which implies a non-mutating snapshot, but it never states side-effect behavior, whether the session must be open, or what happens with a stale token.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key action and target are stated immediately.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what inspection yields (elements, counts, validation state, XML vs structured view). Since the only return-related hint is the 'includeXml' flag in the schema, an agent knows how to call it but not what it gets back.

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 both 'token' and 'includeXml' are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or token-lifetime detail beyond what the schema provides, making this the baseline case.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('latest diagram state behind a live bpmn-js modeler URL'), which is clear and concrete. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'inspect_bpmn_diagram', which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader must infer that this tool works with a preview token produced by 'open_bpmn_modeler' (mentioned only in the token parameter description). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over inspect_bpmn_diagram or other list/export tools.

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

Deploy Server