Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-archimate

mcp-archimate

by byrondelgado
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_relationship_compatibility

Read-only

Find valid ArchiMate relationship types for specified source and target element types to ensure model consistency.

Instructions

Return valid ArchiMate relationship options for source and target types.

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": {
      "source_type": "<source_type>",
      "target_type": "<target_type>"
    },
    "name": "get_relationship_compatibility"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
source_typeYes
target_typeYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It does not disclose what 'valid' means or potential edge cases.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of ArchiMate relationships, the description lacks explanation of what constitutes valid options (e.g., metamodel rules) and does not leverage the presence of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the source_type and target_type parameters beyond their names.

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 returns valid ArchiMate relationship options for given source and target types, distinguishing it from siblings like recommend_relationship.

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 description implies when to use (to get valid relationship options) but does not provide explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use.

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