diagram-forge

by jessepike

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: generation, editing, listing resources, usage reporting, and provider configuration. No two tools overlap in a way that would cause misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (generate_diagram, edit_diagram, list_templates, configure_provider, etc.). The use of 'list' for multiple resource types and 'get' for a report is a reasonable variation within the same structural convention.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well-scoped for a diagram generation service, covering creation, editing, resource discovery, configuration, and reporting without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness4/5
The core lifecycle of diagram generation and editing is covered, along with resource discovery and provider management. The main gap is the lack of tools for managing previously generated diagrams (e.g., listing or deleting outputs), but this is a minor oversight since outputs are saved as files.
Average 4.2/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It only states that the tool edits an image and saves a result, but does not mention side effects, overwrite behavior, provider requirements, or return values. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact argument list. It avoids excessive verbosity, though the argument list is not structurally formatted beyond plain text.
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?
With 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides parameter explanations but lacks behavioral context such as what happens to the original file, how providers affect output, and what the function returns. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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?
The schema has zero descriptions, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter with meaningful detail, such as provider options (gemini|openai), resolution auto-detection, and the purpose of reference_images. This adds value beyond the schema's bare titles.
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 a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('existing diagram') and distinguishes itself from sibling generate_diagram by emphasizing 'existing'. This clearly states what the tool does.
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 the tool is for editing existing diagrams, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over generate_diagram or other alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals the primary side effect (sets an environment variable) and that it is session-only. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, validation, or any error/return expectations. It is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a clear, front-loaded sentence followed by an Args block. Each element serves a purpose, with no redundant text. The structure is easy to scan and immediately actionable.
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?
As a simple configuration tool with no output schema, the description could have explained expected return values or error conditions. It does not mention what happens on success/failure, which limits completeness. However, the core behavior and parameters are covered.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description adds necessary value. For 'provider' it specifies allowed values (gemini|openai), which is substantial. For 'api_key' it provides a short but adequate definition. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Configure an API key for a provider.' It also notes the session-scoped side effect (sets environment variable), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on diagram generation, template listing, and usage reports. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states it sets an environment variable for the current session, providing clear context on scope. It does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the tool's purpose is inherently clear among siblings. The session-scoped detail is a useful usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It accurately states the core behavior (getting a report) but does not explicitly note that it is read-only or describe the output format. The 'get' wording implies safety, and the description is not misleading, but it lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, and the Args list provides parameter details without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally describe the report's structure or contents. It does not mention what fields or format the report includes. The parameters are well-covered, but the output is left undefined, which is a gap for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions, so the Args section in the description is essential. It fully explains both parameters: 'days' as the report period and 'group_by' with allowed values. This goes beyond the schema's minimal structure.
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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('usage and cost report for diagram generations'). It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on diagram generation and configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for reporting, and no sibling tool overlaps with this purpose. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the role is obvious from the tool's unique function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a non-destructive, read-only operation, and the description details what information is returned. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases such as empty states, authorization requirements, or rate limiting, which would enhance transparency for a more complete picture.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no unnecessary jargon or repetition. It is optimally sized for quick comprehension.
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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It states the main purpose and the specific fields included in the result (status, models, health). While it does not explicitly describe the return format (e.g., array vs. object), the information provided is sufficient for most use cases, and the lack of complexity reduces the need for additional context.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object. The description adds no parameter information, but since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies. There is no additional semantic burden for the description to bear.
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured providers'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'configure_provider' (which modifies providers) and other list tools (templates, styles). It also specifies the content of the listing (status, models, health), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 that this tool is for viewing provider information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not explicitly guided, so it remains at the 'implied usage' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It indicates a read-only operation ('List') and adds the qualifier 'available', but does not disclose return format, potential pagination, or error behavior. This is acceptable for a simple zero-parameter tool but lacks richer context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds value, making it an appropriately sized and well-structured description.
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 the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what the tool lists, but could optionally mention how style reference images relate to diagram generation for better context relative to the sibling tools.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter information. No additional semantic burden exists.
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 'List all available style reference images' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (style reference images) that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_templates and list_providers. It's unambiguous and directly reflects the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (when you need to see all available style reference images) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. However, the distinct resource makes the usage context clear without needing a specific alternative mention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, and mentioning 'with descriptions' outlines the content of the return. However, it does not specify pagination, sorting, or any limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the action, target, and output detail in under 10 words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and what the response contains (templates and descriptions), which is sufficient for the agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds the 'all available' scope, which is relevant context for what the listing will return, though no parameter details are needed.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all available diagram templates with descriptions', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from sibling tools like list_providers and list_styles by specifying templates as the subject.
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 when the agent needs to enumerate diagram templates, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools are visually distinct, but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does this well: it explains default provider fallback, cost scaling by quality tier, and that theme governs only the background. It stops short of stating file-creation side effects or auth requirements, but the output_path parameter and cost details provide meaningful transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The one-line summary is followed by a well-organized Args block. While long, each line adds essential info about defaults, constraints, or pricing; no filler or repetition. It is appropriately detailed for an 11-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters, provides usage decision rules, cost implications, and fallback behavior, leaving little ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. Every parameter is explained in Args, including defaults, allowed values, and special guidance for provider/model (LEAVE AS DEFAULT) and quality (cost breakdown). This far exceeds mere schema names.
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 opens with a clear verb and object: 'Generate an architecture diagram from a text prompt.' It distinguishes itself from sibling 'edit_diagram' by focusing on creation, and the parameter list covers many diagram types, making the scope explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides strong usage guidance: tells callers to leave provider/model as default, explains when to override, and gives context on theme defaults. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like list_templates, but the generation-vs-edit distinction is clear enough for selection.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![diagram-forge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jessepike/diagram-forge/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jessepike/diagram-forge)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![diagram-forge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jessepike/diagram-forge/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jessepike/diagram-forge)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/jessepike/diagram-forge'

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