Retrieve the current diagram as a compact cell summary or full draw.io XML. Reads from the live canvas if connected, otherwise the saved current.drawio for agent inspection.
Read the current diagram. Default is a compact cell summary for the agent. Pass format=xml for the full draw.io XML. Uses the live canvas if connected, otherwise the saved current.drawio. Does not create directories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the default summary format, the XML option, the live/saved canvas fallback, and the explicit side-effect note that it does not create directories. It could additionally state that it never modifies the diagram, but 'Read' already implies that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three efficient sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then parameter behavior, then source selection and side-effect note. No filler, no repetition of schema fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only one optional parameter, and the description covers the parameter, source fallback, and non-mutating behavior. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on what the compact summary actually contains would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains the only parameter: 'summary' maps to 'compact cell summary for the agent' and 'xml' maps to 'full draw.io XML'. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw enum values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the current diagram'. It clearly states the two output modes and source selection, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the diagram_export sibling, which could also be a read-like operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives clear guidance on when to use each format ('Default is a compact cell summary', 'Pass format=xml for the full draw.io XML') and on the live vs. saved canvas fallback. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.