Generates BPMN 2.0 XML files that are compatible with Camunda Modeler for business process modeling and workflow orchestration.
Provides the capability to export generated BPMN diagrams as SVG files for high-quality visualization and documentation.
Enables the programmatic creation, modification, and export of workflow diagrams in the industry-standard BPMN 2.0 XML format.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@BPMN-MCP Create a BPMN diagram for an invoice approval process with a gateway"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for creating and manipulating BPMN 2.0 workflow diagrams programmatically. This server enables AI assistants and other tools to generate, edit, and export business process diagrams in the standard BPMN format.
Create BPMN Diagrams: Generate new workflow diagrams from scratch
Add Process Elements: Insert events, tasks, gateways, and subprocesses
Connect Elements: Create sequence flows between workflow components
Export Formats: Save diagrams as BPMN 2.0 XML or SVG
Import Support: Load and modify existing BPMN XML files
Smart Hints: Get helpful nudges to ensure complete workflows with proper connections
Related MCP server: MCP-BPMN Server
Node.js (v16 or higher)
npm or yarn
Clone the repository:
git clone https://github.com/dattmavis/BPMN-MCP.git
cd BPMN-MCPInstall dependencies:
npm installBuild the project:
npm run buildAdd the following to your Claude Desktop configuration file:
macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"bpmn": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/BPMN-MCP/dist/index.js"]
}
}
}Replace /absolute/path/to/BPMN-MCP with the actual path where you cloned this repository.
This MCP server works with any tool that supports the Model Context Protocol. Configure it to run:
node /path/to/BPMN-MCP/dist/index.jsOnce configured, you can ask your AI assistant to create BPMN diagrams. Here are some example requests:
Create a BPMN diagram for an order processing workflow with these steps:
1. Order Received (start event)
2. Validate Order (user task)
3. Process Payment (service task)
4. Order Complete (end event)
Connect them with sequence flows.
Create a BPMN diagram for customer support ticket routing:
- Start: Ticket Received
- Task: Categorize Ticket
- Gateway: Check Priority
- If High: Escalate to Senior Support
- If Normal: Assign to Support Team
- Both paths lead to: Ticket Resolved (end)The MCP server provides these tools:
create_bpmn_diagramCreates a new BPMN diagram and returns a diagram ID.
add_bpmn_elementAdds an element to the diagram. Supported types:
Events: bpmn:StartEvent, bpmn:EndEvent, bpmn:IntermediateCatchEvent, bpmn:IntermediateThrowEvent
Tasks: bpmn:Task, bpmn:UserTask, bpmn:ServiceTask, bpmn:ScriptTask, bpmn:ManualTask, bpmn:BusinessRuleTask, bpmn:SendTask, bpmn:ReceiveTask
Gateways: bpmn:ExclusiveGateway, bpmn:ParallelGateway, bpmn:InclusiveGateway, bpmn:EventBasedGateway
Other: bpmn:SubProcess
connect_bpmn_elementsCreates a sequence flow between two elements.
export_bpmn_xmlExports the diagram as BPMN 2.0 XML format.
export_bpmn_svgExports the diagram as SVG for visualization.
list_bpmn_elementsLists all elements in a diagram.
import_bpmn_xmlImports an existing BPMN XML file for editing.
The server generates standard BPMN 2.0 XML files that can be opened in:
Any BPMN 2.0 compliant tool
Example XML output:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<bpmn:definitions xmlns:bpmn="http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/MODEL"
xmlns:bpmndi="http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/DI"
xmlns:dc="http://www.omg.org/spec/DD/20100524/DC"
xmlns:di="http://www.omg.org/spec/DD/20100524/DI">
<bpmn:process id="Process_1" isExecutable="true">
<bpmn:startEvent id="Event_1" name="Start">
<bpmn:outgoing>Flow_1</bpmn:outgoing>
</bpmn:startEvent>
<bpmn:task id="Task_1" name="Process">
<bpmn:incoming>Flow_1</bpmn:incoming>
<bpmn:outgoing>Flow_2</bpmn:outgoing>
</bpmn:task>
<bpmn:endEvent id="Event_2" name="End">
<bpmn:incoming>Flow_2</bpmn:incoming>
</bpmn:endEvent>
<bpmn:sequenceFlow id="Flow_1" sourceRef="Event_1" targetRef="Task_1" />
<bpmn:sequenceFlow id="Flow_2" sourceRef="Task_1" targetRef="Event_2" />
</bpmn:process>
<!-- Diagram information omitted for brevity -->
</bpmn:definitions>npm run watchThis will rebuild the project automatically when source files change.
You can test the server manually using the MCP protocol:
node dist/index.jsThen send JSON-RPC requests via stdin. Example:
{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"method":"tools/list","params":{}}Runtime: Node.js with TypeScript
BPMN Engine: bpmn-js (headless mode with jsdom)
Protocol: Model Context Protocol (MCP)
Output: BPMN 2.0 XML standard
The server includes helpful hints to ensure complete diagrams:
Reminds you to connect elements when adding tasks/events
Warns when exporting diagrams with disconnected elements
Suggests using connect_bpmn_elements to create proper workflows
MIT
Contributions are welcome! Please feel free to submit issues or pull requests.
For issues or questions:
Open an issue on GitHub
Check existing issues for solutions
bpmn-js - BPMN 2.0 rendering toolkit
Model Context Protocol - Protocol specification
Add an element (task, gateway, event, etc.) to a BPMN diagram
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diagramId | Yes | The diagram ID returned from create_bpmn_diagram | |
| elementType | Yes | The type of BPMN element to add | |
| name | No | The name/label for the element | |
| x | No | X coordinate for the element (default: 100) | |
| y | No | Y coordinate for the element (default: 100) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It lacks details on behavioral traits like whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Add'), permission requirements, error handling, or how elements are integrated into the diagram (e.g., default positioning). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies diagrams.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
For a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after addition (e.g., returns an element ID, updates the diagram in-place), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like 'create_bpmn_diagram', leaving the agent with incomplete context.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying element types, which the schema's enum already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('element to a BPMN diagram'), specifying the types of elements (task, gateway, event, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'connect_bpmn_elements' or 'list_bpmn_elements' by focusing on creation rather than connection or listing, but doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a diagram created first via 'create_bpmn_diagram'), exclusions, or specific contexts for element addition, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Connect two BPMN elements with a sequence flow
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diagramId | Yes | The diagram ID | |
| sourceElementId | Yes | The ID of the source element | |
| targetElementId | Yes | The ID of the target element | |
| label | No | Optional label for the sequence flow |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states the action 'connect' but doesn't disclose if this is a mutation (likely yes), what permissions are needed, if it's reversible, error conditions, or how it affects the diagram. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies BPMN diagrams.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.
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?
Given the complexity of a diagram mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after connection (e.g., diagram update, return values), potential side effects, or error handling, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (diagramId, sourceElementId, targetElementId, label). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameters are used for connecting elements, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra context like format examples or constraints.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'connect' and resource 'two BPMN elements with a sequence flow', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_bpmn_element' or 'list_bpmn_elements', which might involve element manipulation but not specifically connections.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing elements or diagrams), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'add_bpmn_element' for adding elements before connecting them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new BPMN diagram. Returns a diagram ID that can be used with other tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Optional name for the diagram |
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 disclosure. It states the tool creates a new diagram and returns an ID, which implies a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects (e.g., if creation is idempotent or has rate limits). This is a significant gap for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is extremely concise—two sentences that directly state the action and the return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value's format beyond 'diagram ID', error conditions, or how the ID integrates with sibling tools. For a tool that likely initiates a workflow (e.g., followed by 'add_bpmn_element'), more context is needed.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'name' parameter documented as optional. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'BPMN diagram', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'import_bpmn_xml' or 'list_bpmn_elements' by focusing on creation rather than import or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'add_bpmn_element' might be ambiguous), so it's not a perfect 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., if a diagram must be created before using 'add_bpmn_element'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'import_bpmn_xml' for existing diagrams. This leaves the agent with minimal context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Export a BPMN diagram as SVG
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diagramId | Yes | The diagram ID |
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 disclosure. It states the action (export) but doesn't describe what the export produces (e.g., file content, download link), error conditions, permissions required, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Export a BPMN diagram as SVG') that directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (export operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the output (what the SVG contains, how it's returned), error handling, and dependencies (e.g., diagram must exist). For a tool with no structured output or annotations, more context is needed.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'diagramId' documented as 'The diagram ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Export a BPMN diagram as SVG,' which is a specific verb (export) and resource (BPMN diagram). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'export_bpmn_xml' by specifying the output format (SVG vs XML), but doesn't differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'create_bpmn_diagram' is clearly different).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing diagram), compare it to 'export_bpmn_xml' for format choice, or indicate when export might fail. Usage is implied from the name and purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Export a BPMN diagram as XML
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diagramId | Yes | The diagram ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool exports XML, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, if it modifies the diagram, what happens on errors, or the format/scope of the exported XML. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary details.
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?
Given the complexity (export operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the exported XML contains, how it's structured, or any limitations (e.g., size, supported BPMN versions). For a tool with no structured data to compensate, this leaves the agent under-informed.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'diagramId' documented as 'The diagram ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as where to find the ID or its format. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description 'Export a BPMN diagram as XML' clearly states the action (export) and resource (BPMN diagram) with the output format (XML). It distinguishes from siblings like 'export_bpmn_svg' by specifying XML instead of SVG, but doesn't fully differentiate from 'import_bpmn_xml' which involves the same format for input.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing diagram), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'export_bpmn_svg' for different output formats or 'list_bpmn_elements' for viewing without export.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Import an existing BPMN XML diagram
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| xml | Yes | The BPMN XML to import |
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 disclosure. It states the tool imports BPMN XML, implying a write operation, but doesn't describe what happens during import (e.g., validation, error handling, or effects on existing diagrams). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Import an existing BPMN XML diagram.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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?
Given the complexity of importing BPMN XML (a mutation operation), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, potential errors, or behavioral details like validation. For a tool with these gaps, it should provide more context to be fully helpful.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'xml' parameter documented as 'The BPMN XML to import.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format details or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Import an existing BPMN XML diagram.' It specifies the verb ('import') and resource ('BPMN XML diagram'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_bpmn_diagram' or 'export_bpmn_xml', which would require a 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing valid BPMN XML), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new diagrams), or comparisons to siblings like 'create_bpmn_diagram' or 'export_bpmn_xml'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all elements in a BPMN diagram
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diagramId | Yes | The diagram ID |
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 states a read operation ('List'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't address key aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'elements' encompass (e.g., nodes, edges, metadata). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with one required parameter.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple list operation, making it highly efficient.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'elements' include, the return format (e.g., list of objects, JSON structure), or error conditions. For a tool with siblings involving BPMN diagrams, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'diagramId' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this (e.g., explaining what a diagram ID is or where to find it), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('List all elements') and target resource ('in a BPMN diagram'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_bpmn_xml' or 'import_bpmn_xml', which also involve BPMN diagram elements but for different purposes.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing diagram), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'add_bpmn_element' (for creation) or export tools (for output formats).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0add_bpmn_elementconnect_bpmn_elementscreate_bpmn_diagramexport_bpmn_svgexport_bpmn_xmlimport_bpmn_xmllist_bpmn_elementsEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose: create_diagram, add_element, connect_elements, list_elements, import_xml, export_xml, and export_svg. There is no overlap in functionality—tools target specific actions like creation, modification, listing, import, and export without ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'bpmn' as a prefix (e.g., create_bpmn_diagram, add_bpmn_element). The naming is uniform across all seven tools, using snake_case and clear action descriptors without any deviations.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for BPMN diagram management. It covers core operations like create, modify, list, import, and export, which is appropriate for the domain without being too sparse or bloated.
The toolset provides strong coverage for BPMN diagram lifecycle: create, modify (add/connect), list, import, and export (XML/SVG). A minor gap is the lack of update or delete operations for elements or diagrams, but agents can work around this by re-importing or managing via XML.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
MCP server enabling AI agents to manage Bitrix24 features via standardized protocol
MCP server for secureFlows: token-free URL builders and integration-linting tools for AI agents.
Create and manage Mermaid.js flowcharts and diagrams with AI agents via MCP.
MCP server unifying ERPs, CRMs, APIs and knowledge base for Claude, ChatGPT and Gemini.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dattmavis/BPMN-MCP'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
