Skip to main content
Glama
heyq02

Mermaid-Grammer-Inspector

by heyq02
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Mermaid Grammer Inspector

Mermaid-Grammer-Inspector MCP server npm version npm downloads bundle size license

A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for validating Mermaid diagram syntax and providing comprehensive grammar checking capabilities

Usage

Install the package:

# npm
npm installg @bjmhe/mermaid-grammer-inspector-mcp

# yarn
yarn addg @bjmhe/mermaid-grammer-inspector-mcp

# pnpm
pnpm addg @bjmhe/mermaid-grammer-inspector-mcp

# bun
bun installg @bjmhe/mermaid-grammer-inspector-mcp

# deno
deno installg npm:@bjmhe/mermaid-grammer-inspector-mcp

# vp
vp installg @bjmhe/mermaid-grammer-inspector-mcp

NPX Cursor Config

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "mermaid-grammer-inspector": {
      "command": "npx",
      "type": "stdio",
      "transportType": "stdio",
      "args": ["-y", "mermaid-grammer-inspector"]
    }
  }
}

Http Cursor Config

start the service locally

mermaid-grammer-inspector --http --port=4000

set the config

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "mermaid-grammer-inspector": {
      "url": "http://0.0.0.0:4000/sse",
      "type": "sse",
      "transportType": "sse"
    }
  }
}

Related MCP server: mcp-mermaid-validator

License

Published under the MIT license. Made by community đź’›

🤖 auto updated with automd

Available Tools

1 tool
checkA

Check if the text is a valid mermaid diagram. Returns an empty string if valid, otherwise returns the error message.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
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. It clearly discloses the return behavior (empty string or error message), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made or that the tool is side-effect-free, which would be a minor improvement.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—and front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler. Ideal for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no siblings), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and return value. However, it could mention that the tool does not alter any state or require specific permissions, which would fully round out the context.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining the 'text' parameter. While the description implies the parameter is the mermaid diagram code, it adds no additional detail about format, constraints, or examples. The self-explanatory parameter name and context keep this from being a 2, but more detail would elevate it.

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 purpose: checking if text is a valid mermaid diagram. It specifies both the object (text) and the condition (valid mermaid diagram), and details the return value (empty string for valid, error message for invalid). This is specific and 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?

Although there are no sibling tools, the description implicitly defines when to use this tool: when validation of mermaid diagram syntax is needed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is clear. A small deduction for lack of explicit usage guidance.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool updatev1.0.11
    • Changedcheck1 field changed
      • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
        Removed value: -false
  2. 1 tool update
    • First observedcheck
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no ambiguity whatsoever.

Naming Consistency5/5

With a single tool, naming is trivially consistent.

Tool Count3/5

A single tool for validation is borderline; it feels thin for a server named 'Inspector' but could be acceptable for a focused utility.

Completeness2/5

Only validation is provided; lacking features like parsing, rendering, or transformation for a diagram inspector.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers