UML Forge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

umlforge_stakeholder_arch

Read-only

Generate C4 architecture diagrams for technical and non-technical stakeholders, including Context, Container, and Component views in one call.

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. Omit to use your saved account preference (dashboard toggle); False forces diagrams only.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`report_mode`	No
`system_description`	Yes
`audience_description`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.3.0Oct 16, 2026
- 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"
```
First observedv0.1.9Jul 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, read-only, non-destructive operation. Beyond that, the description discloses what is actually produced (the four artifact types), states that report_mode requires a Pro/Team/Enterprise plan, and explains the omit-to-use-saved-preference fallback — meaningful context annotations cannot express. It stops short of noting generation latency or cost, which for a multi-diagram generation call would be the remaining useful detail.

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 with the core verb+resource, then sectioned into USE THIS WHEN / NOT FOR / Produces / Args. The NOT FOR lines are one line each and the Args block mirrors the schema order, so nothing is padded.

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 return values need not be enumerated, yet the Produces section still tells the agent what diagrams come back, letting it judge sufficiency before invoking. Combined with the tri-state report_mode semantics and the tier restriction, an agent has everything needed to call 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 carries the full burden, and it does: all three parameters are explained, with audience_description illustrated by two examples and report_mode given precise tri-state semantics (True adds notes, False forces diagrams only, omit inherits the dashboard setting) plus its tier gate. system_description's explanation is comparatively thin, which keeps it off a 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) and resource (C4 architecture diagram) with a qualifying scope: a mixed technical/non-technical audience. The explicit NOT FOR list naming umlforge_reverse_engineer, umlforge_api_sequence, umlforge_deployment and umlforge_threat_model makes the boundary against siblings unambiguous.

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?

The USE THIS WHEN block gives three concrete triggering scenarios (stakeholder presentation, high-level planning, wanting Context+Container+Component in one call) and the NOT FOR block routes each adjacent need to a named alternative tool.

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

Deploy Server