Creates a SysML diagram of a specified kind (BDD, IBD, Parametric, Requirement, Activity, StateMachine, UseCase, Package, Sequence) under a given parent element in the model.
Create a SysML diagram. kind: BDD, IBD, Parametric, Requirement, Activity, StateMachine, UseCase, Package, Sequence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| parent_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create' without revealing whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens on invalid parent IDs. The description provides no behavioral details beyond the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately lists the allowed kinds. No filler or redundant phrasing; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create operation with three parameters and no annotations, the description is sparse. It does not explain the expected structure of 'parent_id', the return value (even though an output schema exists, it is not described), or any constraints on the diagram kind or parent. Given the tool's simplicity, more context on the parent relationship and valid kinds would be needed for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists the valid values for the 'kind' parameter, which adds meaning beyond the schema (which has no descriptions for any parameter). However, it does not explain 'parent_id' or 'name', leaving them to inference. Since schema coverage is 0%, this partial compensation is helpful but insufficient for full parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Create a SysML diagram') and lists the accepted diagram kinds (BDD, IBD, etc.), which clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from element-creation siblings like create_block or create_use_case. An agent can immediately know this tool is for diagrams, not other model elements.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for creating new diagrams, but it does not specify when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the parent_id needing to be a package or model. No exclusions are given, leaving the usage context vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.