Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
togaf10_EAP_MCP

togaf10_EAP_MCP

by Waganawa-Megumin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Draw the roadmap as a Gantt chart

diagram_roadmap_gantt

Generate a Mermaid Gantt roadmap from engagement work packages and transition architectures, converting quarters to dates, marking milestones, and flagging undated items or dependency conflicts.

Instructions

移行ロードマップを Mermaid のガントチャートで返す。エンゲージメントの作業パッケージ(YYYY-Qn 表記)と移行アーキテクチャから自動生成し、四半期を日付に変換して移行状態をマイルストーンとして置く。日付未設定の項目と依存関係の矛盾も指摘する。 / Render the migration roadmap as a Mermaid Gantt chart from the engagement work packages (quarters written as YYYY-Qn) and transition architectures, converting quarters to dates and placing transitions as milestones. Also flags undated items and dependency conflicts.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "diagram_roadmap_gantt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNo出力言語 / Output languageboth
itemsNoエンゲージメントを使わない場合の項目 / Items to use when no engagement data exists
titleNo図のタイトル / Chart title
useEngagementNoエンゲージメントの登録内容を優先する / Prefer the engagement data when it exists

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well: it discloses the output format (Mermaid Gantt), the data sources, the transformation logic (YYYY-Qn quarters converted to dates, transitions placed as milestones), and the diagnostic behavior (flags undated items and dependency conflicts). It stops short of stating whether the call is read-only or how the flags are surfaced in the returned chart.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences front-load the core purpose before the diagnostic behavior, with no filler words. The bilingual ja/en duplication roughly doubles the length, but that is justified for a tool whose own lang parameter serves both audiences, and each clause earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the main return value (Mermaid Gantt chart) and data sources, but leaves questions open: how undated-item and dependency-conflict flags are reported in the output, what happens when neither engagement data nor items are available, and what 'dependency conflicts' means given the schema's items have no dependency field. Moderate complexity warrants a bit more disclosure.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and every sub-property of items. The description adds modest context — that items serve as a fallback when no engagement data exists and that the quarter notation feeds the conversion logic — but per the baseline rule, the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Render the migration roadmap as a Mermaid Gantt chart' — which immediately distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval tools like get_roadmap and from other diagram_* tools with different subjects (diagram_capability_map, diagram_adm_cycle). It further names the input sources (engagement work packages, transition architectures), making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

The rendering purpose and the quarter-to-date conversion behavior imply a visualization use case, but the description never explicitly states when to choose this tool over get_roadmap (structured roadmap data) or the roadmap-editing siblings (prioritize_work_packages, remove_roadmap_item), nor does it give exclusions. Usage context is inferable from the purpose but not directly stated.

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