UML Forge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

umlforge_deployment

Read-only

Generate deployment topology and CI/CD pipeline diagrams that map cloud infrastructure, service connections, environments, and rollback paths for DevOps planning.

Instructions

Generate a deployment topology and CI/CD pipeline diagram.

USE THIS WHEN:

You want to visualise your cloud infrastructure and how services connect
You need to document your CI/CD pipeline from commit to production
You are planning infrastructure, disaster recovery, or a DevOps handover

NOT FOR:

Application-level architecture (how code is structured) ? use umlforge_reverse_engineer
Security threat modelling ? use umlforge_threat_model
How services call each other at the API level ? use umlforge_api_sequence

Produces:

Deployment diagram: nodes, artefacts, network paths, protocol/port labels, internet-facing vs internal traffic distinction
CI/CD pipeline flow: commit ? build ? test ? staging ? production, automated gates, manual approvals, rollback paths
Deployment environment table: infrastructure, triggers, data classification, monitoring, rollback strategy per environment
Infrastructure risk note: SPOFs, missing redundancy, environment parity gaps
Observability gap flags (??) for services without /health endpoints
(report_mode=True) Infrastructure Health Report: reliability score, observability score, deployment safety score (A?F)

Args: system_name: Name of the system (e.g. "UML Forge API"). cloud_provider: Cloud provider(s) (e.g. "AWS", "Railway + Vercel", "GCP"). environments: Deployment environments (e.g. "development, staging, production"). services: Services and infrastructure (e.g. "FastAPI API, Next.js, PostgreSQL, Redis"). cicd_tool: CI/CD tool (e.g. "GitHub Actions", "GitLab CI") (optional). report_mode: True ? also produce an Infrastructure Health Report. Pro/Team/Enterprise only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`services`	Yes
`cicd_tool`	No
`report_mode`	No
`system_name`	Yes
`environments`	Yes
`cloud_provider`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.0Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds genuine behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the report_mode paywall ('Pro/Team/Enterprise only') and the exact contents produced, including observability gap flags and risk notes. It stops short of disclosing generation latency, rate limits, or cost characteristics.

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?

Heavily front-loaded with purpose first, then usage, exclusions, and outputs; the USE THIS WHEN / NOT FOR / Produces scaffolding makes scanning easy. The Produces bullet list is longer than strictly necessary for tool selection, but each bullet is informative rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the return shape (diagram, pipeline flow, environment table, risk note, health report) and documents all inputs and the plan-gated mode. For a multi-parameter generative tool, nothing 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 carries the full parameter burden, and it does so: all six parameters are documented with concrete example values (e.g. cloud_provider: 'Railway + Vercel', services: 'FastAPI API, Next.js, PostgreSQL, Redis'), which also conveys the expected comma-separated string format. It also calls out that cicd_tool is optional and gates report_mode by plan.

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 first line states a specific verb and two concrete resources ('deployment topology and CI/CD pipeline diagram'), and the NOT FOR section explicitly names rival siblings (umlforge_reverse_engineer, umlforge_threat_model, umlforge_api_sequence), so an agent can discriminate it 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?

It provides an explicit 'USE THIS WHEN' block with three concrete scenarios and a 'NOT FOR' block that routes three adjacent use cases to named alternative tools. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered with alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server