Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dave1362

UML Forge

by dave1362
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

umlforge_api_sequence

Read-only

Generate sequence diagrams of service calls for a specific user action or API flow. Trace requests across microservices and document failure paths, retries, and error handling.

Instructions

Diagram how services call each other for a specific user action or API flow.

USE THIS WHEN:

  • You want to trace a request across multiple services (e.g. "user logs in")

  • You are designing API contracts between microservices

  • You need to show failure paths, retries, and error handling between services

  • You are writing QA test cases or doing incident post-mortems

NOT FOR:

  • Full codebase analysis → use umlforge_reverse_engineer

  • Async/event-driven messaging → use umlforge_event_driven

  • Frontend component interactions → use umlforge_frontend_components

  • Database schema design → use umlforge_erd_schema

Produces:

  • Sequence diagram: happy path + at least 2 failure paths, activation boxes, sync vs async arrows, performance boundary annotations

  • Inter-service dependency table: caller, callee, protocol, failure mode, mitigation

  • (report_mode=True) Design Score: Resilience, Performance, Contract Clarity (A–F)

Args: services: All participants, e.g. "API Gateway, Auth Service, Order Service, Payment Provider, User DB". user_journey: The action to diagram in plain English, e.g. "User places an order through checkout". report_mode: True → also produce a Design Score report. Pro/Team/Enterprise only. Omit to use your saved account preference (dashboard toggle); False forces diagrams only.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
servicesYes
report_modeNo
user_journeyYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / report_mode / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / report_mode / default
      Previous value: -falseNew value: +null
    • removedInput schema / properties / report_mode / type
      Removed value: -"boolean"
  2. First observedv0.1.9

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/not-destructive/open-world, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: report_mode is gated to Pro/Team/Enterprise, omitting it falls back to a saved account preference, and the output enforces at least two failure paths with activation boxes and sync/async arrows. Some of the 'Produces' bullets overlap the output schema, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Header-delimited sections put purpose and routing first, and the Args block is tightly annotated. Slightly long, with the 'Produces' bullet list partially restating what the output schema already conveys, which costs a point on strict economy.

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?

For a complex diagramming tool the definition covers routing, inputs with examples, output shape, tier limits, and failure-path requirements. With an output schema and full annotation coverage already present, nothing material an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full burden, and it does: services and user_journey each get a concrete example, and report_mode explains the True semantics, the tier restriction, the omit-to-use-preference default, and the explicit False behavior. This fully compensates for undocumented schema properties.

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 and resource ('Diagram how services call each other') qualified by scope ('for a specific user action or API flow'). The NOT FOR section names four siblings and the exact condition that routes to each, so the agent can distinguish it from umlforge_reverse_engineer, umlforge_event_driven, umlforge_frontend_components, and umlforge_erd_schema without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides an explicit USE THIS WHEN list of four concrete scenarios plus a NOT FOR list that names the correct alternative tool for each exclusion. When-to-use, when-not, and alternatives are all spelled out with no inference required.

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