generate_umlGenerates UML and other diagrams from code by selected type, returning rendered SVG/PNG/PDF/JPEG as URLs, base64, or saved files.
Generate any UML or diagram by type (class, sequence, mermaid, d2, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| scale | No | ||
| theme | No | ||
| output_dir | No | ||
| diagram_type | Yes | ||
| output_format | No | svg |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1+ronzz.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotent and non-destructive hints, so the bar for transparency is lower. The description adds the range of supported diagram types but does not disclose potential file output behavior (e.g., output_dir) or the meaning of the code parameter.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the action, scope, and examples.
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?
Given 6 parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is too terse to fully guide invocation. It explains what the tool does but not how to construct the required code input or what optional parameters control, though an output schema exists to mitigate return-value ambiguity.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only gives examples for diagram_type but leaves code, scale, theme, output_dir, and output_format unexplained, relying on property names alone.
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 clearly states the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'any UML or diagram by type', with explicit examples (class, sequence, mermaid, d2). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_uml, list_diagram_types, and generate_uml_batch.
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?
The description implies this is the primary single-generation tool, and sibling names suggest validation and batch alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or give direct comparisons to generate_uml_batch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.