Skip to main content
Glama
veelenga

claude-mermaid

by veelenga
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have perfectly distinct purposes: mermaid_preview renders and displays a diagram in a browser with live updates, while mermaid_save saves the rendered diagram to disk. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, as each handles a separate stage of the diagram workflow.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the 'mermaid_' prefix: mermaid_preview and mermaid_save. The naming is clear, predictable, and uniform throughout the set, making it easy for an agent to understand their functions.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the set feels thin for a Mermaid diagram server, as it lacks operations like editing, exporting to different formats, or managing themes programmatically. However, it covers the core preview-and-save workflow, so it's borderline but not severely mismatched.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools provide basic functionality for previewing and saving diagrams, but there are notable gaps: no tool for creating or editing diagrams from scratch, no support for different output formats (e.g., PNG, SVG), and no way to manage themes or settings beyond the preview. This limits the server's utility for full diagram lifecycle management.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 46 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool copies an already-rendered diagram from the live preview, which is useful context beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., file overwriting), error conditions, or what happens if the preview_id doesn't exist, leaving some behavioral gaps.

    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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear usage guideline. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential context and guidance without any redundant or verbose language.

    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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage timing, and relationship to the sibling tool. However, it lacks details on output behavior (e.g., success/failure responses) and potential errors, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations and output schema.

    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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the diagram is 'already-rendered' and comes from the 'live preview', which provides context but no additional parameter-specific details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

    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 specific action ('Save'), resource ('current live Mermaid diagram'), and destination ('to a file path'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool mermaid_preview by specifying it operates on the already-rendered diagram from the preview. This provides explicit verb+resource+scope differentiation.

    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?

    The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this after tuning your diagram with mermaid_preview'), providing clear sequencing guidance and linking it directly to the sibling tool. It also implies when not to use it (e.g., before previewing), though it doesn't name explicit alternatives beyond the sibling.

    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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool opens a browser with live reload, auto-refreshes when updated, supports themes and customizations, and has limitations for sequence diagrams. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like browser pop-ups or network requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

    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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the main action, the second details features, the third covers auto-refresh and sibling tool, and the last two provide critical usage notes. However, the structure could be slightly more streamlined by combining related points.

    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 (8 parameters, live preview functionality) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering essential context: purpose, usage rules, key features, and limitations. It adequately guides an agent on how and when to use the tool, though it doesn't detail the preview interface or error handling, which are minor gaps.

    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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema, mentioning themes and custom backgrounds generically. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

    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 specific action ('Render a Mermaid diagram and open it in browser with live reload') and distinguishes it from its sibling tool ('Use mermaid_save to save to disk'). It explicitly mentions the resource (Mermaid diagram) and the verb (render/preview), making the purpose unambiguous.

    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?

    The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Automatically use this tool whenever you create a Mermaid diagram for the user') and when not to use it for saving ('Use mermaid_save to save to disk'). It also includes a specific exclusion for sequence diagrams ('Sequence diagrams do not support style directives - avoid using 'style' statements in sequenceDiagram'), offering clear alternatives and limitations.

    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

claude-mermaid MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

claude-mermaid MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/veelenga/claude-mermaid'

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