it-architecture

by slajzad

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

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 has a clearly distinct purpose: guide, listing of styles, listing of node types, validation, rendering, multi-style rendering, preview, and notation conversion. No overlaps.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., list_styles, render_architecture, convert_notation.
Tool Count5/5
Eight tools cover the core workflow of IT architecture diagramming without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness5/5
The tools provide complete lifecycle support: learning (guide), configuration (styles, node types), validation, rendering, preview, and notation conversion. No obvious gaps.
Average 3.9/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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 partially covers behavior: it says layout is automatic and returns file paths. Missing details on side effects like file overwriting, default output location, or the fact that it writes to disk.
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 concise sentences front-load the main purpose and key constraints. No redundant or unnecessary 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 with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't mention the need to call get_authoring_guide to learn the DSL, nor does it hint at default style or how to specify diagram content.
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 92%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no new param-specific meaning beyond what's already in the schema, meeting the baseline.
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 description clearly states the tool draws an IT architecture and saves as SVG, mentioning optional multi-style output. However, it does not distinguish from sibling 'render_all_styles' which also generates multiple styles, leaving potential ambiguity.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like validate_architecture or preview_architecture. The instruction to not supply coordinates is a usage rule but not a context for selection.
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 provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output behavior: files go into one directory, suffixed with style name. It does not mention output format (assumed SVG from sibling tools), the interaction between 'style' and 'styles' parameters, or whether existing files are overwritten. The description is minimally adequate but leaves several behavioral aspects unstated.
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, extremely concise, and front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value. There is no wasted text or redundancy. This is an exemplary model of conciseness for a tool description.
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 tool's complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, enums), the description is quite sparse. It fails to explain the interplay between the 'dsl' and 'spec' inputs, the default behavior when no styles are specified, and output details like format. The schema compensates heavily, but for a tool with multiple output mode and many configuration options, the description lacks completeness.
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 92% (high), so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond schema: it mentions file suffixing (tied to filename/style) but does not explain the distinction between 'style' and 'styles' or how they interact. Most parameter meanings are already well-documented in the schema, so the description provides marginal added value.
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 description clearly states the tool renders the same architecture in multiple styles into one directory, with files suffixed by style name. It is specific about the verb (Render) and resource (architecture per style). However, the term 'available style' is ambiguous as it could mean all known styles versus those specified via the 'styles' parameter, slightly reducing clarity. It distinguishes from sibling render_architecture by implying multiple outputs.
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 the tool is for generating multiple style variants for comparison, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like render_architecture (single style) or preview_architecture (preview). No explicit instructions on prerequisites or when not to use it are provided. The usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions conversion and normalisation but does not clarify side effects, permissions, idempotency, or whether the operation is read-only.
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 succinct sentences with no wasted words; front-loaded with key purpose and usage hint.
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 of nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the core conversion purpose but could elaborate on what 'normalising' entails and the outcome when both dsl and spec are provided.
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?
Schema coverage is high (83%) and the description adds value by directing users to call get_authoring_guide to learn the DSL, providing guidance 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 verb 'convert' and the resource 'diagram between the compact DSL and the JSON spec (both directions)', and distinguishes it from siblings like validate, render, and preview which have different purposes.
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 case ('editing a diagram that was written in the other notation') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives such as validate or render.
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?
Description discloses return content (icons, category, aliases) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or pagination. With no annotations, the description partially fulfills the burden.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys purpose and output.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is listed. Could specify order or if exhaustive, but 'every' implies completeness.
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?
Zero parameters, baseline 4 per rubric. Description adds no param info but none needed.
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?
Clear verb 'List' and resource 'every component icon' with details on what is returned (category, aliases). Distinguishes from sibling 'list_styles' which lists styles, not node types.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Implied usage for retrieving node types, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the key behavioral trait: returns inline SVG without writing a file. This is sufficient for understanding, though additional details like error handling or prerequisites could enhance transparency.
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 a single, well-front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action and usage condition without any wasted words.
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?
While the description covers the core purpose and usage, it omits crucial context such as the need to provide either 'dsl' or 'spec' (both optional in schema but at least one required) and the output format. Given the tool's complexity with 9 parameters and nested objects, more context is needed.
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 only 44%, and the description does not add any parameter explanations beyond what the schema provides. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent without guidance on using the two input alternatives (dsl vs spec) or other parameters.
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 returns SVG markup inline rather than writing a file, which distinguishes it from siblings like render_architecture. The verb 'Return' and resource 'SVG markup' are 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?
Explicitly advises use when the client can display or post-process SVG directly, providing a clear usage condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use the tool.
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 fully carries the burden. It clearly states the tool is non-destructive (parses without drawing), reports errors/warnings, and is cheap to call. This adequately discloses its behavior.
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, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. No fluff or redundancy.
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 schema has nested objects and no output schema, the description adequately explains what types of errors/warnings it produces (syntax, references, orphan nodes, etc.). It could hint at the response format but is sufficient for a validation 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?
The schema covers 80% of parameters with descriptions, so the description need not repeat them. It briefly mentions 'dsl' and 'spec' but adds no significant meaning beyond the schema's own 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 parses a diagram without drawing it and reports all errors and warnings, distinguishing it from rendering tools like render_architecture.
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?
The description advises using it before rendering because it is cheap, implying cost-effective validation. It could explicitly mention when not to use or mention alternative tools for learning the DSL (get_authoring_guide) or fetching icon types (list_node_types).
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 carries full burden. It describes the return value (notation, styles, group kinds, example) but does not disclose any side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond being a read-only documentation 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?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence plus the 'No arguments' note. It front-loads 'Read this first' to establish priority. Every part is necessary and adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a clear purpose as an introductory guide, the description fully equips an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly. The sibling list reinforces its role as a starting point.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the description explicitly confirms 'No arguments'. With 100% schema coverage and no parameters to document, the description adds sufficient clarity.
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 returns 'the complete notation for describing an IT architecture', along with styles, group kinds, and a worked example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_styles or list_node_types which likely return subsets.
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?
The tool is explicitly labeled 'Read this first', indicating it should be used before other tools. It also states 'No arguments' for simplicity. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It accurately describes a read-only listing operation with no side effects, fully transparent.
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?
Single sentence listing all styles and stating purpose. No wasted words, front-loaded with action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully conveys what the tool does and what it returns (list of styles with descriptions). Complete for the tool's simplicity.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter info because none are needed.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists available drawing styles with descriptions, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_node_types which list node types.
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?
The description implies usage when needing to know available styles. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are needed given the lack of similar tools, but it could mention it is for style selection.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/slajzad/mcp-architecture'

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