Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-archimate

mcp-archimate

by byrondelgado
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

count_by_type

Read-only

Count active ArchiMate model elements and relationships grouped by type to analyze model composition.

Instructions

Count active model content grouped by ArchiMate type.

Returns:
    Success envelope with `data.elements_by_type` and
    `data.relationships_by_type`, each a dict of type name to count.

Errors:
    `ModelNotFoundError` if no model is active.

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": "count_by_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral details: it returns a success envelope with two dicts (elements_by_type and relationships_by_type) and can raise ModelNotFoundError. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not cover potential rate limits or authorization needs.

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 concise (two short paragraphs) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the return structure and error condition. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is not expected to add parameter information. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 counts active model content grouped by ArchiMate type, specifying both elements and relationships. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_elements and query_relationships, which return lists rather than aggregated counts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies it is for summary statistics, it lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements, and no alternative tools are mentioned.

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