staruml-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

find_elements

Find elements by metamodel type and/or name. Omit both to retrieve all elements.

Instructions

Find elements by metamodel type and/or name. Examples: type='UMLClass', name='User'. Omit both to return all. Requires staruml-mcp-extension to be installed in StarUML. Install from https://github.com/ezrabrilliant/staruml-mcp-extension

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "find_elements"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Exact name match
`type`	No	Metamodel type. Examples: 'Project', 'UMLModel', 'UMLClass', 'UMLPackage'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.3Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It reveals the dependency on an external extension, but lacks details on error behavior, return format, or side effects, though it implies a safe read operation.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words, but could benefit from bullet-style formatting for readability. It is front-loaded with purpose, then examples, then prerequisite.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema and two optional parameters, the description adequately covers search and retrieval of all elements, and flags the extension dependency. It could specify the return type (list of elements) but is sufficient for selection.

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%, and the description adds value by providing example values (type='UMLClass', name='User') and clarifying behavior when both parameters are omitted, which enhances usability.

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?

The description clearly states "Find elements by metamodel type and/or name" with concrete examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_element_by_id or create_element.

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?

The description mentions a prerequisite (extension installation) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., get_element_by_id for exact ID vs. this for type/name search). Usage context is implied, not explicit.

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