Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
plantuml-mcp

plantuml-mcp

by Vlonetatii3
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Get PlantUML URLs

get_diagram_urls

Encodes PlantUML code into shareable PNG, SVG, or TXT URLs plus an online editor link without rendering, so you can distribute diagrams for viewing or editing.

Instructions

Encodes PlantUML code into shareable PNG/SVG/TXT URLs and an online editor link, without rendering.

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "get_diagram_urls"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesPlantUML source. @startuml/@enduml is added automatically if missing.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no rendering occurs and what artifact types come back, but says nothing about failure behavior for invalid PlantUML, URL-length limits for large diagrams, or whether generation is offline/local.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and output types with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is produced (URL variants plus editor link) and that no rendering happens, which is enough to invoke it. It falls just short on error behavior and practical limits of the encoded URL.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% with the schema already explaining the @startuml/@enduml auto-wrapping. The description adds no additional meaning about the code parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (encodes) and resource (PlantUML code) with the exact artifact produced (shareable PNG/SVG/TXT URLs plus an editor link). The phrase 'without rendering' implicitly separates it from the sibling render_diagram.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'without rendering' hints this is the lighter alternative to render_diagram, but neither sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement. An agent can infer the intent but gets no routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools