Skip to main content
Glama

umlforge_stakeholder_arch

Read-only

Generate C4 Context, Container and Component architecture diagrams for mixed technical and non-technical stakeholders from a system description.

Instructions

Generate a C4 architecture diagram for a mixed technical/non-technical audience.

USE THIS WHEN:

  • You are designing or presenting a system to stakeholders (CTO, investors, board)

  • You need a high-level picture of a system you are planning or explaining

  • You want Context + Container + Component diagrams in one call

NOT FOR:

  • Analysing code that already exists ? use umlforge_reverse_engineer

  • Tracing a specific API request across services ? use umlforge_api_sequence

  • Infrastructure and deployment topology ? use umlforge_deployment

  • Security threat modelling ? use umlforge_threat_model

Produces:

  • C4 Context: system boundary, external actors, primary integrations

  • C4 Container: deployable units, tech stack labels, communication protocols

  • C4 Component: internals of the most complex container

  • (report_mode=True) Architecture Communication Notes: audience fit, communication gaps, clarity quick wins

Args: system_description: What the system does, who uses it, its major components. audience_description: Who will read this (e.g. "CTO and non-technical board", "backend engineers new to the system"). report_mode: True ? also produce Architecture Communication Notes. Pro/Team/Enterprise only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
report_modeNo
system_descriptionYes
audience_descriptionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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=true and openWorld=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it enumerates the produced artifacts (Context/Container/Component) and discloses a licensing gate (report_mode is Pro/Team/Enterprise only), plus the extra Communication Notes output. It stops short of noting determinism/idempotency behavior, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by clearly labeled USE THIS WHEN / NOT FOR / Produces / Args sections. Every bullet adds routing or behavior value; no filler sentences.

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, so the description need not explain return values, yet it still summarizes the diagram outputs. Combined with full parameter documentation and tier gating, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all meaning, and it documents all three parameters with substance: system_description (what/who/components), audience_description (with examples), and report_mode (semantics plus the Pro/Team/Enterprise restriction). It does not specify format/length expectations, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 (Generate), resource (C4 architecture diagram), and scope (mixed technical/non-technical stakeholder audience). The NOT FOR section names the exact sibling to use for adjacent tasks, so an agent can distinguish it from umlforge_api_sequence, umlforge_deployment, etc. 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?

Explicit USE THIS WHEN bullets give concrete triggering scenarios (CTO/investor/board presentations, high-level system picture), while NOT FOR routes four alternative tasks to their correct siblings. Nothing about when-to-use vs when-not 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.