drawio-mcp

by rifujin123

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool focuses on a unique task: creating specific UML diagram types (activity, class, sequence, use case), generating a specification, or reading/updating existing diagrams. No overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., draw_class_diagram, read_diagram_file, generate_usecase_specification), ensuring predictability.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server covers the core UML diagram creation, specification generation, and file management without being overly sparse or bloated.
Completeness4/5
The set covers four common UML diagram types and includes read/update capabilities, but lacks creation for other diagram types (e.g., state, component) that might be expected from a draw.io-focused server.
Average 3.9/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 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 ISC 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, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format and that it opens in draw.io, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior on invalid input.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the main purpose, and contains no redundant or unnecessary information.
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?
Given the complexity of activity diagrams and the absence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain constraints (e.g., one start/end node), valid flow connections, or error scenarios, which may lead to incorrect tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions nodes, flows, and swimlanes but does not explain parameters like startNodeId, endNodeId, or individual property semantics. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool.
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 creates a UML activity diagram as a .drawio file, specifying the resource (activity diagram) and verb (create). It distinguishes from sibling tools that draw class, sequence, or usecase diagrams.
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 implicitly indicates usage for activity diagrams via the name and mention of node types, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or any when-not conditions.
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 discloses output format (.drawio file) and compatibility (opens in draw.io). However, it does not mention any behavioral traits like file creation behavior, permissions, or side effects, leaving gaps for a creation tool.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. First sentence states purpose and output. Second sentence lists capabilities. Front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. Missing details on relationship types, stereotype definitions, attribute syntax, error handling, and file behavior (overwrite, etc.). Schema coverage is 0%, so description carries the burden but falls short.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It only provides a high-level list of accepted elements (classes, attributes, methods, relationships) without explaining structure, defaults, or constraints. Nested objects (e.g., methods with params, visibility) are undocumented.
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 creates a UML class diagram as a .drawio file, using specific verbs and resources. It lists accepted elements (attributes, methods, stereotypes, relationships) and distinguishes it from sibling tools for other diagram types.
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 use for class diagram creation but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives (e.g., other diagram types). Context from sibling names provides differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It adequately explains the output format (.drawio), notations used, and supported relationships, but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations.
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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It lists key features in a bullet-like style without excessive words. However, it could be slightly more structured to group related information.
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 (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides a good overview but lacks details on parameter usage (e.g., what 'id' is for, how 'systemBoundary.include' works). It is somewhat complete but leaves gaps for an agent to figure out.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description lists some parameters (actors, use cases, system boundaries, relationships) but does not explain all 8 parameters in detail. For example, 'title' and 'systemBoundary.include' are not mentioned. The description adds some context but is insufficient to compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the tool creates a UML use case diagram as a .drawio file, specifies proper UML notation, and distinguishes from sibling tools (other draw_* diagram tools and generate_usecase_specification) by focusing on use case diagrams and their elements.
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 when to use the tool (to create a use case diagram) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. The context from sibling tool names helps but the description itself lacks clear usage guidelines.
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 full burden. It discloses optional file saving and output format, but lacks details on file overwrite behavior, permissions needed, or other side effects. Basic transparency but incomplete for a mutation tool.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then output format, then optional saving. No wasted words, efficient communication.
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 16 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the output structure but does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., markdown string) if no outputPath is given. Missing return behavior for a complex tool.
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 documents all parameters. The description adds context by summarizing the document structure, but does not add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. Adequate but not exceptional.
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 generates a detailed use case specification in Vietnamese format, specifying the output as a structured markdown table. It distinguishes from sibling diagram tools by focusing on specification documents rather than visual diagrams.
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 this tool is for generating use case specs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., diagram tools) or provide exclusions. Context from sibling tool names helps, but no direct guidance is offered.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains the input and output format but omits details about side effects, idempotency, or permission requirements, which leaves some behavioral aspects unclear.
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 two concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose and immediately detailing accepted types, with no wasted words.
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 complexity of creating a diagram, the description covers the core inputs and output format well. However, it lacks information on where the .drawio file is saved or returned, and does not mention error conditions or constraints.
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 0% description coverage, yet the description lists participant and message types and their ordering, adding significant meaning beyond the raw schema. It explains the structure of participants and messages, but misses the 'title' parameter.
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 creates a UML sequence diagram as a .drawio file, listing specific participant types and message types, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like draw_class_diagram or draw_activity_diagram.
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 for creating sequence diagrams but does not explicitly guide when to prefer this tool over alternatives like draw_class_diagram or provide exclusions or prerequisites.
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?
No annotations, but description clearly indicates read-only operation ('Read and parse') and lists returned data. No side effects mentioned, but reasonable for a simple read.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, details, use case. No fluff.
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?
Covers purpose, output, and usage context. Lacks error handling info, but for a simple read tool with good sibling context, sufficient.
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 coverage is 100% with a good description. Tool description adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states it reads and parses .drawio files, returns cell details. Distinct from sibling tools that create or update diagrams.
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?
Explicitly notes it is useful for inspecting before making changes, implying when to use. Could be more explicit about not using for creation, but context with siblings clarifies.
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?
No annotations are provided, but the description discloses the modification nature and lists all operation types. It doesn't detail failure modes or atomicity, but the key behaviors are transparent given the tool's straightforward mutation purpose.
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?
Three sentences with zero fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, then operations, then workflow. Every sentence is essential and well-structured.
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 complexity (multiple operation types) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, operations, and workflow adequately. It could be improved by hinting at return values or error handling, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal new meaning. It summarizes operation types (e.g., move vs move_by) but the schema already captures these via const values. The description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
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 modifies an existing .drawio file and lists supported operations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that create diagrams (draw_*) or read files (read_diagram_file).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to use read_diagram_file first to inspect cell IDs, then call update_diagram_file with target operations. Provides clear context on prerequisites and proper workflow.
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:

[![drawio-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rifujin123/drawio-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rifujin123/drawio-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![drawio-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rifujin123/drawio-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rifujin123/drawio-mcp)

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/rifujin123/drawio-mcp'

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