Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dave1362

UML Forge

by dave1362
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

umlforge_living_docs

Read-only

Update existing Mermaid diagrams when code changes in a sprint or PR. Generates a changelog-annotated diff of affected sections.

Instructions

Update diagrams you already have to reflect what changed in a sprint or PR.

USE THIS WHEN:

  • You ALREADY HAVE Mermaid diagrams (from a previous generation or your own)

  • Code has changed in a sprint or PR and your diagrams are now out of date

  • You want a changelog-annotated diff of your diagrams

NOT FOR:

  • Generating diagrams for the first time → use umlforge_reverse_engineer (for existing codebases) or umlforge_stakeholder_arch (for new designs)

  • Analysing a GitHub URL → use umlforge_reverse_engineer instead

  • Generating diagrams without existing ones to update → use any other tool

IMPORTANT: current_diagrams is REQUIRED — paste your existing Mermaid diagrams (including the ```mermaid fences). This tool cannot generate from scratch.

Produces:

  • Updated diagrams for affected sections only (with %% changelog headers)

  • New diagrams for newly introduced patterns

  • Architecture evolution note for pasting into a wiki

  • (report_mode=True) Documentation Analysis Notes: change impact, drift risks, coverage quick wins

Args: current_diagrams: Your existing Mermaid diagram(s) — paste the full content including ```mermaid fences. REQUIRED. sprint_changes: What changed this sprint: new components, removed flows, renamed services, modified behaviour. affected_files: Files or modules touched in this sprint/PR (optional). report_mode: True → also produce Documentation Analysis Notes. Pro/Team/Enterprise only. Omit to use your saved account preference (dashboard toggle); False forces diagrams only.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
report_modeNo
affected_filesNo
sprint_changesYes
current_diagramsYes

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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; description is consistent with a compute-and-return operation. It adds genuinely non-structured context: report_mode's Pro/Team/Enterprise tier gate, the default-from-dashboard-preference behavior, and the exact set of artifacts produced (changelog headers, evolution notes, Analysis Notes).

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose before the routing rules, and headers make scanning easy. Slightly verbose: the 'Generating diagrams without existing ones to update → use any other tool' bullet and the IMPORTANT restatement of the required-parameter rule duplicate points made elsewhere.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, yet it still summarizes the produced artifacts so the agent can set expectations. Inputs, prerequisite state (must already have diagrams), and tier constraints are all covered for a 4-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: it documents all four parameters with semantics beyond the schema titles — current_diagrams (required, full Mermaid content including fences), sprint_changes (new/removed/renamed/modified), affected_files (optional scope), and report_mode (boolean, tier-gated, omit-to-use-saved-preference). This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 precise verb and resource ('Update diagrams you already have to reflect what changed in a sprint or PR') and explicitly names the siblings it is not (umlforge_reverse_engineer, umlforge_stakeholder_arch). An agent can distinguish it from all 13 siblings from the description alone.

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?

Contains explicit 'USE THIS WHEN' and 'NOT FOR' sections, routing the agent to the correct alternative for each excluded case (first-time generation → reverse_engineer or stakeholder_arch; GitHub URL → reverse_engineer). Nothing is left to inference.

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