Find DGMO diagram syntax documentation, optionally filtered by chart type, to resolve language questions when creating sequence, flowchart, or bar diagrams.
Get the DGMO language reference documentation. Optionally filter by chart type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chart_type | No | Optional chart type to get reference for (e.g. "sequence", "flowchart", "bar") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2v0.1.21v0.1.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral details beyond retrieving documentation, such as output format or side effects. Minimal added value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no superfluous words. It front-loads the main action but could benefit from slightly more detail on output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not hint at the return format or structure. Given the simplicity of the tool, more context about the documentation content would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the chart_type parameter. The description echoes the schema without adding new semantics, meeting the baseline for schema-covered parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves DGMO language reference documentation and optionally filters by chart type. This distinguishes it from tools like 'get_examples' or 'list_chart_types' but does not explicitly contrast with siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify scenarios where filtering is needed or when other tools are more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.