Draw.io MCP server information

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds semantic context about what information is exposed (allowed roots, supported workflows), going slightly beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention response format, but for a zero-parameter info endpoint this is not a critical gap.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler or redundant restatement. It front-loads the actionable verb and object, making it easy to parse.

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 trivial 0-parameter read-only server-info tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what the tool returns in broad terms. A more precise list of the exact response fields would help, but the current description is enough for correct invocation and outcome interpretation.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema confirms this (100% coverage). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters because none exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('allowed roots and supported workflow information') with clear scope. It distinguishes itself from diagram-operation siblings (create_diagram, inspect_diagram, validate_diagram, update_diagram) as a general server introspection tool.

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?

While there is no explicit 'use when...' guidance, the description makes it evident that this tool is for retrieving server-level information, not performing diagram operations. The sibling list reinforces that boundary. No exclusions are needed because the tool's purpose is self-contextualizing.

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