Skip to main content
Glama
newen-systems

nifi-mcp

nifi_layout_process_group

Idempotent

Lays out processors, connections, and child process groups within a NiFi process group in a top-down layout, routing lines to avoid overlaps.

Instructions

Lay processors out top-down, forks sideways, and stack child process groups top-down.

Processors: 240px rows (tallest card + label + 32px). At a fork the main branch continues down and the others sit on the fork's row, 672px out; a fork of leaves spreads one row down, 512px apart. Joins return to the fork's axis; every card is centred on its axis by its own width. A self-loop sits outside its card's side with its label on the outer stretch. The second of two connections between one pair, a retry line back up, and any line or label that would cross a card or another label are routed: out of the source's side (else its top or bottom), along a free lane between card columns, into the target's side (else its top or bottom), never along another line. Child process groups: 288px rows, 424px columns, one per row in flow order, upstream above downstream.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds substantial behavioral detail about the resulting layout, including row spacing, fork/join routing, self-loop placement, and child group arrangement, which helps an agent understand what the operation does beyond its safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is a clear lead, but the rest is dominated by pixel-level layout rules and routing edge cases that are not needed for tool selection or invocation. These details crowd out more important information such as the input parameter and usage context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. However, the description omits the only input parameter and any usage context, meaning an agent still lacks critical information for invoking the tool correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage and the single parameter, process_group_id, is not mentioned in the description at all. The agent receives no help understanding what value to supply or what entity it identifies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence states a specific action for a specific resource type: laying out processors and child process groups. It distinguishes the tool from CRUD siblings by its layout focus, though it never explicitly names a sibling alternative or says 'process group' in the description itself.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as get_flow or create_connection. It only describes how the layout is performed, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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