Skip to main content
Glama
jagadeesh52423

Mermaid SVG MCP Server

by jagadeesh52423
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.2.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap with other tools, as there are no other tools to compare it to. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct by default.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool name 'generate_mermaid_svg' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, and since there are no other tools, consistency is inherently perfect with no deviations or mixed conventions.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool for a server focused on Mermaid diagram generation feels thin and under-scoped, as it only covers SVG generation without related operations like validation, theme management, or diagram listing. This is borderline too few for the apparent domain.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for the Mermaid diagram domain, as it only provides generation to SVG without supporting operations like creating, updating, deleting diagrams, or handling other formats (e.g., PNG, PDF), leading to significant gaps in coverage.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'always saving the result as an SVG file', which is a useful behavioral trait, but lacks details on error handling, performance, or side effects like file overwriting. It partially compensates for missing annotations but leaves gaps.

    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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. It uses two sentences efficiently, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise by combining ideas. Overall, it avoids unnecessary details and is well-structured.

    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?

    Given the complexity (a file-saving tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the main action and output format but lacks details on error cases, file naming conventions beyond the 'filename' parameter, or what happens if the file already exists. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a tool that modifies the filesystem.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'customizable themes and background colors', which aligns with the 'theme' and 'backgroundColor' parameters but doesn't provide additional semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Generate SVG content', 'save it to a file') and resources ('from Mermaid diagram syntax'), and distinguishes it by mentioning the output format (SVG) and customization options (themes, background colors). It explicitly states the action and result format.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It mentions the tool's functionality but lacks context for decision-making, such as when to choose this over other rendering methods or file formats.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mermaid-svg-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mermaid-svg-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jagadeesh52423/mermaid-svg-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server