drawio-engineering-mcp

by RFingAdam

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between open_drawio_engineering and other open_drawio tools. The descriptions differentiate them, but confusion is possible.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_emc_test_setup, export_drawio, read_drawio), making them predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
10 tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose of engineering diagram creation and manipulation. Each tool serves a distinct role without being excessive.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers creation from multiple formats, export, and reading. Minor gap: no tool for programmatic editing of existing diagrams beyond markup annotations.
Average 4.2/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 3.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on May 13, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only or destructive, or any other side effects. It only states it 'opens' the editor, leaving mutation unclear.
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?
Two sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and then elaborate on supported types. No redundant information or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the main action and supported types. Minor gap: could mention that it creates a new diagram or allows editing.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool opens the draw.io editor with a diagram from Mermaid.js syntax, listing supported diagram types. This differentiates it from siblings like open_drawio_csv by specifying the input format.
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 description implies usage for Mermaid diagrams but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Listing supported types gives some guidance, but no contrast with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the locked background layer and foreground annotations, but lacks details on file handling, saving behavior, or limitations. No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden.
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?
Four sentences, front-loaded with key action, each sentence adds value. Could be slightly shorter but is well-structured and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers workflow (vision first), layering, use case, and annotation types. Omits some behavioral details but is adequate given absence of output schema and annotations.
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 coverage is 100%, meeting baseline. Description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides for parameters, such as defaults for w, h, color.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies 'opens a schematic screenshot in draw.io with engineering annotations' and lists annotation types, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like open_drawio_engineering or open_drawio_mermaid.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Use this to mark up existing schematics' and suggests analyzing with vision first, providing clear context though not explicitly excluding alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Opens the draw.io editor' without disclosing side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether it is read-only or mutating. The lightbox parameter hints at read-only but is not explained.
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?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second adds format context. Front-loaded with primary action.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description could elaborate on return behavior or errors. It adequately covers purpose and parameter context but lacks guidance on what the tool returns or how it behaves.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by referencing 'draw.io's CSV import specification' for the content parameter, providing context beyond the schema. The lightbox and dark parameters are standard.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Opens the draw.io editor with a diagram generated from CSV data', providing a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings like open_drawio_xml or open_drawio_mermaid by specifying CSV data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for tabular data via CSV, saying 'allows creating org charts, flowcharts, and other diagrams from tabular data'. This gives context but does not explicitly mention when to use or avoid compared to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool generates a diagram from a template, opens in draw.io by default, and supports label overrides and distance annotations. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but adequate for a creation tool.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections and bullet points for templates, providing comprehensive information without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers templates, parameters, and behavior well, but lacks explicit mention of the return value (e.g., XML string or URL) when auto_open is false.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% per context signals. The description adds value by explaining each template's purpose and listing possible keys for equipment_overrides, going beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it generates an EMC test setup diagram and opens it in draw.io, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_rf_block_diagram and create_pcb_stackup.
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 description provides a list of available templates and mentions overrides, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It explains conversion mechanisms but omits potential failures (e.g., if puppeteer unavailable for PNG) and side effects beyond file creation.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys all key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers return value, parameter defaults, and format differences. With no output schema, description adequately rounds out understanding. Minor gap: no mention of content validation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with basic descriptions; description adds behavioral details for format and output_path (default tmp file). Provides value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'exports' and the specific resource (draw.io diagram XML to SVG or PNG), distinguishing it from sibling tools that open or read drawio files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context on when to use SVG vs PNG based on browser requirement, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses that XML must be valid and warns about double hyphens. But it does not cover side effects, permissions, or behavior on invalid input beyond the comment issue.
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?
Description is brief: two sentences plus a warning note. It front-loads the purpose and adds critical usage detail concisely. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core action and a critical constraint. It lacks details on return behavior or editing specifics, but suffices for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. Description adds value by specifying the XML format requirement and the crucial hyphen rule for comments, going beyond schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Opens the draw.io editor' and specifies the resource as 'diagram from XML content'. It explicitly mentions the format (draw.io/mxGraph XML) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_drawio_csv or open_drawio_mermaid.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says 'Use this to view, edit, or create diagrams', providing clear context. It also warns about the XML comment hyphen rule. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool in favor of sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes automatic loading of 240+ stencil libraries and includes a syntax warning. However, lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, or output behavior. With no annotations, more disclosure would improve transparency.
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?
Two sentences plus a note, all essential. Front-loaded with main action, no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, usage guidance, and a critical syntax constraint. With no output schema, the description is adequate for an editor-opening tool. Could mention synchronous behavior or return value, but not essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. Description adds context that stencils are loaded automatically in the sidebar and lists library categories, providing meaning beyond the schema enum values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it opens draw.io editor with engineering XML and loads stencil libraries. Distinguishes from sibling tool open_drawio_xml by specifying use for engineering block diagrams.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to use this instead of open_drawio_xml for engineering block diagrams. Provides an important syntax note about avoiding double hyphens in XML comments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return format (structured JSON), supported formats (uncompressed mxGraphModel XML and .drawio), and implies read-only behavior. Could further emphasize no file modification, but is adequate.
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?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded action verb 'Reads and parses'. No redundancy or filler. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return format, usage guidance, and format support.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description explains return format well. For a read-only tool with 3 parameters fully covered in schema, description is sufficiently complete. Could mention error behavior or file existence, but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning beyond schema by clarifying that include_style_details provides parsed style properties and include_geometry includes position/size. Adds context to file_path (absolute path) and boolean meanings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it reads and parses .drawio/.xml files, returning structured JSON with shapes, edges, and properties. Distinguishes from siblings like create_* or export_drawio by focusing on reading/analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: analyze existing diagrams, extract component lists, or understand structure before modifications. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but context of sibling tools implies those are for creation or different formats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 describes the output (opens in draw.io, shows layers with colors), mentions available materials and copper weights, and notes the auto_open parameter to control opening behavior. It does not mention potential side effects or cleanup, but it is fairly transparent about the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for templates, layer types, materials, and copper weights. It is front-loaded with the main action and every sentence adds value without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: output type, templates, layer types, materials, and control over opening. It could mention error handling or what happens if custom template is used without layers, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant context beyond the schema. It explains the meaning of templates, layer types and their colors, available materials, and copper weights. This helps the agent understand parameter values and their implications, providing value beyond the parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a PCB stackup cross-section diagram and opens it in draw.io. It specifies the verb 'generates', the resource 'PCB stackup diagram', and the action 'opens in draw.io'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with other diagram types or export/read operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (to generate a PCB stackup diagram) and explains available templates (4layer, 6layer, custom) with brief explanations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives among siblings, though the siblings are different diagram types, so the comparison is implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: auto-layout, signal flow arrows, color-coding, injection sources with dashed arrows, and cumulative gain/NF annotations via Friis formula. It also explains block properties and default behavior, leaving no ambiguity.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections: main purpose, layout behavior, block types list, and per-property details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description covers the tool's outcomes (opens in draw.io or returns XML if auto_open is false) and parameter behavior thoroughly. It lacks details on the returned XML format or error scenarios, but remains largely complete for a generation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond schema by explaining layout logic, inject_to placement, defaults from a component database, and the Friis formula for cumulative annotations. This enriches understanding of how parameters affect the output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates an RF signal chain block diagram from JSON and opens it in draw.io. It uses a specific verb 'generates' and resource 'RF signal chain block diagram', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_emc_test_setup or create_pcb_stackup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains 'Provide an array of blocks...' and details the layout and supported types, implying when to use the tool for RF block diagrams. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance, though the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![drawio-engineering-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RFingAdam/drawio-engineering-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RFingAdam/drawio-engineering-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![drawio-engineering-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RFingAdam/drawio-engineering-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RFingAdam/drawio-engineering-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/RFingAdam/drawio-engineering-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server