Load a complete diagram structure by its ID for visual reasoning. Retrieves full diagram data or returns an error, enabling structured chain-of-thought navigation.
Load and return complete diagram structure.
Args: diagram_id: ID of diagram to load
Returns: dict with full diagram structure or error
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diagram_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond 'load and return'. It does not state permissions required, whether the operation is read-only, or how failures are surfaced beyond a vague 'or error'.
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?
Very short and front-loaded with the core action. The Args/Returns docstring boilerplate is somewhat redundant given a schema and output schema exist, but it costs little.
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?
For a simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema already defining return values, the description is nearly adequate. The redundant Returns line and missing usage/permission context are the main gaps.
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 single parameter is only restated as 'ID of diagram to load', adding no format, source, or constraint information. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.
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?
States a specific verb (load) and resource (diagram structure), so the agent knows it fetches a full diagram. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like diagram_extract, diagram_list_saved, or explore_equivalent_states, which also deal with diagram content.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as diagram_extract or diagram_list_saved, and no prerequisites or context are given. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.