Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
staruml-mcp

staruml-mcp

by ezrabrilliant
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update_element

Modify a property of an existing StarUML element by specifying its ID, field name, and new value.

Instructions

Set a property on an existing element. Requires staruml-mcp-extension to be installed in StarUML. Install from https://github.com/ezrabrilliant/staruml-mcp-extension

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "field": "<field>"
    },
    "name": "update_element"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesElement _id
fieldYesProperty name, e.g. 'name', 'documentation', 'visibility'
valueNoNew value

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.3

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes the extension requirement but fails to disclose side effects like mutation impact, return value, or potential errors.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states purpose; the second adds installation context. Could be slightly more front-loaded but is efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about return behavior, error conditions, or prerequisites. It only covers installation, leaving gaps for selection and result handling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents id, field, and value. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Set' on a clear resource 'property on an existing element', directly distinguishing it from siblings like create_element or delete_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 implies usage for modifying existing elements but provides no guidance on when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites beyond the extension requirement.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools