unseen-mcp

Revise Workflow Diagram

revise_workflow

Idempotent

Apply targeted delta revisions to an existing VisualSpec workflow diagram—modify labels, roles, or edges—while preserving Visual Contract validity and source grounding.

Instructions

Apply targeted delta revisions to an existing VisualSpec workflow diagram (e.g. modify node labels, adjust roles like step vs decision, add/remove edges, or heal connections) while preserving Visual Contract v0.1 validity and source grounding.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "spec": "<spec>",
      "instruction": "<instruction>"
    },
    "name": "revise_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`spec`	Yes	The existing VisualSpec object to revise
`authToken`	No	Optional session token (`utok_...`) if not passed via Authorization header.
`instruction`	Yes	Clear revision instruction (e.g. 'Change node-2 role to decision and label to Finance Approval?', 'Remove orphan node-4', 'Autofix layout connections')
`additionalSources`	No	Optional additional source evidence excerpts to support the revision

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds post-conditions – the result must still satisfy Visual Contract v0.1 and remain source-grounded – but does not say whether the passed spec is mutated in place or a new spec is returned, which matters for a mutation tool.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and the constraint trailing. The parenthetical example list is dense but each item maps to a real capability; nothing is redundant filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers what the tool does and its validity/grounding guarantees, which is most of what is needed for a nested-object mutation. However there is no output schema, so the description should have said what comes back (revised spec, diff, validation errors) and it does not.

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 coverage is 100%, so per the baseline this is a 3, raised slightly because the description's phrase 'source grounding' explains why 'additionalSources' exists and ties 'instruction' to delta-style edits. It still adds no format or size constraints beyond the schema's own examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('apply targeted delta revisions') against a specific resource ('an existing VisualSpec workflow diagram') and enumerates the operation types (labels, roles, edges, connection healing). It is clearly separable from compile_workflow/detect_workflows, though the overlap with autofix_workflow implied by 'heal connections' is never resolved.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'existing' spec and 'delta' revisions suggest it is for editing a spec you already hold, versus generating one. No sibling is named and there is no exclusions guidance, so an agent cannot tell from this text whether to call revise_workflow or autofix_workflow to repair connections.

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

Deploy Server