diagrams-so

Official

by RedHold

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

Fix one warning

fix_warning

Resolve a specific Well-Architected warning on a diagram, creating a new version without affecting other elements.

Instructions

Resolve a single Well-Architected warning (from get_warnings), leaving the rest of the diagram untouched. Creates a new version. Costs credits.

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": {
      "diagram_id": "<diagram_id>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "fix_warning"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes	The warning's `message` (as returned by get_warnings)
`component`	No	The warning's `component`, if any
`diagram_id`	Yes	The diagram id
`warning_type`	No	The warning's `type`, e.g. no_encryption_transit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.4.1Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the tool 'Creates a new version' and 'Costs credits', which are significant behavioral side effects critical for an agent to know before invoking it. This adds substantial value.

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?

Three short, focused sentences: the main action, the side effect on versions, and the cost. No unnecessary words, and the key 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?

The description covers the essential aspects: targeted scope, version creation, and cost, which are sufficient for a mutation tool. It could mention the return value or failure modes, but given the tool's simplicity and annotations, it is largely complete.

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?

The schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, including the mapping to get_warnings fields. The description does not add additional parameter meaning, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Resolve' targeting a 'Well-Architected warning' and adds the constraint 'single' and 'leaving the rest of the diagram untouched', which clearly distinguishes it from broader diagram-editing tools like edit_diagram or update_diagram.

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?

It provides clear context for use: fixing a single warning from get_warnings, implying it is the targeted alternative to broader diagram edits. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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