Need a C4 architecture diagram? Generate Context, Container, or Component views with actors, systems, and boundaries directly in Draw.io format.
Generate an official C4 architecture diagram (Context, Container, or Component view) with actors, systems, and boundaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec | Yes | ||
| output_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'generate', implying creation, but does not disclose that it writes to output_path, whether it overwrites, what the output format is, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with no fluff. The key action and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the purpose.
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?
The tool has an output schema and a complex nested spec object, but the description gives no guidance on how to structure the spec or what the return value represents. An agent would likely need examples or additional details to use this tool correctly.
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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the parameters. However, the phrase 'with actors, systems, and boundaries' hints at the content of the spec object, and output_path is self-explanatory. Still, spec is a free-form object with additionalProperties true, so more guidance would be beneficial.
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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and a specific resource ('C4 architecture diagram') with the three view types and elements, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_er_diagram or generate_sequence_diagram.
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 usage for C4 diagrams but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. There is no guidance on choosing between C4 and other diagram types, leaving the agent to infer from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.