Skip to main content
Glama
SaharshPamecha

@drawx/mcp-server

by SaharshPamecha
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.1

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The tools 'generate_diagram' and 'architect_design' both generate diagrams but serve distinct purposes: general diagram creation vs. architectural design with documentation. 'whoami' is unrelated. Descriptions clearly differentiate the two diagram tools, though some overlap remains for architecture diagram requests.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Tool names are all lowercase with underscores, but patterns differ: 'generate_diagram' (verb_noun), 'architect_design' (noun_noun or unusual verb_noun), and 'whoami' (standalone command). The mix of conventions makes the set less predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 3 tools, the surface is minimal but well-scoped for the server's purpose of generating diagrams from natural language. Each tool serves a core function: general generation, architectural design with documentation, and account verification. No tool feels redundant or missing.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers diagram generation and modification (via previousXml) and includes architectural design with written output. It lacks tools for listing, deleting, or converting diagrams, which is acceptable given the focus on generation. Minor gap in retrieving non-XML outputs.

  • Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • 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 carries the full burden. It mentions outputs (diagram XML and rationale) but does not disclose safety aspects, side effects, authentication needs, or whether the tool is read-only. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

    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 long, front-loading the core action and followed by a use case. No superfluous words; every sentence adds value.

    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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the primary output and scope. It lacks details on return format or error handling, but for a design tool with schema-enriched parameters, 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?

    Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the brief is central and that depth controls output types, but it does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers for each parameter.

    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 produces a High-Level Design diagram from a brief, optionally including Low-Level Design and a written document. It explicitly targets 'design me an architecture for X' requests, distinguishing it from siblings like generate_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?

    The description provides explicit context for when to use the tool ('Best for design me an architecture for X requests'). However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though siblings are listed in context.

    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 provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions return type and modify capability, but lacks detail on destructiveness, rate limits, auth needs, or any side effects.

    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 key info, no fluff. Efficient and clear.

    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?

    Explains output format (mxfile XML) and modify scenario, which compensates for missing output schema. Lacks some behavioral context, but overall covers essential usage.

    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 each parameter described. Description adds minimal extra value (e.g., 'pass previousXml to modify'), but does not significantly extend understanding 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?

    Description clearly states verb (generate), resource (draw.io diagram), and output format (mxfile XML). Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'architect_design' and 'whoami' which are unrelated.

    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 guidance for modifying existing diagrams via previousXml. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear for its intended use.

    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 bears full burden. It discloses the output: account, plan, tier, quota. No side effects are mentioned, but for a read-only query tool, this is sufficient.

    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 action, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose and usage context. It is complete for its scope.

    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?

    No parameters exist (0 params), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but baseline is 4 for 0-param tools.

    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 identifies the tool's purpose: showing the DrawX account, plan, API tier, and quota. It distinguishes itself from siblings (generate_diagram, architect_design) by being a diagnostic tool.

    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 explicit usage context: useful to confirm the key works before generating. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but 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

drawx-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

drawx-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/SaharshPamecha/drawx-mcp-server'

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