Flowgraf
REMOTE · FLOWGRAF.IN · 2 COMPONENTS
Create and edit architecture diagrams from your AI agent; get an SVG and a live editable canvas.
Available components
Last scanned (4 hours ago)
Scores higher than 10% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Design and Media
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security63
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation not yet verified: we couldn't confirm whether this endpoint requires it. View diagnostics → Unverified
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present. View diagnostics → Pass
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability0
- Transport check failed: declared streamable-http, but the endpoint returned HTTP 402. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability0
- Schema not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's schema, or could read only part of its tool list.Unverified
Stability & Change Management0
- Stability not yet verified: not enough scan history yet (needs a 30-day window).Unverified
Tool Coverage0
- Tool coverage not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools, or could read only part of the list.Unverified
Tool Safety0
- Tool safety not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools, or could read only part of the list.Unverified
Capabilities0
- Capabilities not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's capabilities.Unverified
Unverified: 5 categories
Categories scored 0 because we could not verify them: authentication we do not have, an unreachable endpoint, or not enough scan history. We only credit what we can confirm.
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 29 Sept 26 0
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → not serving MCP ▼ security
- 28 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 27 Sept 26 0
- Stability: pass → 0.70 functional
- 25 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 6 Sept 26 0
- Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Stability: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Transport: fail → pass ▲ security
- Authorization: Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 3 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. security
- Endpoint reachability: not serving MCP → reachable ▲ functional
- MCP protocol: unverified → pass ▲ functional
- Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- 28 Aug 26 0
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → not serving MCP ▼ security
- Stability: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
- Authorization: Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to connect, but we couldn't read the whole tool list to see what that exposes. security
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- First check of Schema quality: unverified functional
- 26 Aug 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 25 Aug 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 5 Nov 2026 · Probed https://flowgraf.in/api/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=flowgraf.in | CN=YR1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 8 Sept 2026 | 7 Dec 2026 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 52af2945da442230e16fb2cb5b72f9d8b31 |
| SANs: flowgraf.in | ||||||
| CN=YR1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | a20253f15f2691c05dc1ce13b9bcca4e |
| CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | RSA 4096 | SHA256-RSA | f24b6d17f9d9ad7cb1c9fea78782699f |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of flowgraf.in. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| in. | present | 10094 | 13 | Verified |
| flowgraf.in. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication Inconclusive
We could not reach the endpoint well enough to judge its authorisation posture.
| Result | Inconclusive |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 402 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=63072000 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://flowgraf.in/api/mcp | HTTP error | 402 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://flowgraf.in/api/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 308 | https://flowgraf.in/api/mcp |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
create_diagram Create architecture diagram ~791
Create a NEW architecture diagram from a graph that YOU author, and get back a shareable, editable canvas URL plus a rendered SVG and Mermaid. You produce only the SEMANTICS — nodes, the groups (VPC/cluster/...) they live in, and the directed edges between them. You do NOT lay anything out: never send x/y/position/pinned. A deterministic layout engine computes all geometry and an icon layer picks the pictures from each node's kind. kind.catalog is one of aws | gcp | azure | k8s | saas | generic, each with rich per-catalog kind.types (e.g. aws:lambda, gcp:bigquery, azure:cosmos_db, k8s:deployment, saas:kafka): - "aws" (api_gateway, lambda, s3, rds, dynamodb, sqs, bedrock, kinesis, fargate, eventbridge, aurora, ...). - "gcp" (compute_engine, gke, cloud_run, cloud_sql, spanner, firestore, bigquery, pubsub, dataflow, vertex_ai, ...). - "azure" (virtual_machine, aks, app_service, functions, blob_storage, sql_database, cosmos_db, service_bus, event_hubs, key_vault, ...). - "k8s" (pod, deployment, statefulset, daemonset, job, cronjob, service, ingress, configmap, secret, hpa, ...). - "saas" for hosted third-parties (redis, postgresql, mysql, mongodb, kafka, stripe, twilio, auth0, github, cloudflare, ...). - "generic" primitive when nothing branded fits: service, database, cache, queue, user, external_system, storage, gateway, function, note. - "generic" FLOWCHART kinds for processes/flowcharts: process, decision, terminator, data, document, subprocess. edge.kind is one of: request, response, async_event, data_flow, dependency, network, generic. WORKED EXAMPLE — a user hitting an API in a VPC that talks to Postgres: { "title": "Web API", "domain": "cloud_architecture", "graph": { "groups": [{ "id": "g_vpc", "label": "VPC", "type": "vpc" }], "nodes": [ { "id": "n_user", "label": "User", "kind": { "catalog": "generic", "type": "user" } }, { "id": "n_api", "label": "API", "kind": { "catalog": "aws", "type": "api_gateway" }, "parentId": "g_vpc" },…
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | string | – | Optional domain hint (default: generic). |
| graph | object | yes | – |
| title | string | yes | A short title for the diagram. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
edit_diagram Edit architecture diagram ~722
Apply a list of operations to an EXISTING diagram. The ops re-use this tool's op vocabulary; you author them, we validate + apply + re-layout + re-render. ALWAYS call get_diagram(diagramId) first: it returns the current ids and the `version`. Pass that version as `baseVersion`. If the diagram changed since you fetched it, you get a STALE_VERSION error telling you the current version — refetch with get_diagram, recompute your ops, and retry. The operations (each element of `ops`): - add_node { op, node:{ id, label, kind, parentId? } } - remove_node { op, id } (also drops edges touching the node) - update_node { op, id, patch:{ label?, kind?, parentId?, metadata? } } - add_edge { op, edge:{ id, source, target, kind, label?, directed? } } - remove_edge { op, id } - update_edge { op, id, patch:{ source?, target?, label?, kind?, directed? } } - add_group { op, group:{ id, label, type, parentId? } } - remove_group{ op, id } - move_to_group { op, nodeId, groupId } (groupId null un-nests the node) - set_layout { op, patch:{ direction?, spacing? } } - insert_between { op, newNode:{ id, label, kind, parentId? }, sourceId, targetId, inKind?, outKind? } insert_between IS THE KEY OP for "add X between A and B" requests. It splices newNode onto the existing A→B edge: removes that edge, adds the node, and wires A→newNode→B so the connection re-routes through it automatically. WORKED EXAMPLE — "add a Redis cache between the API and the DB" on the diagram above: 1) get_diagram(diagramId) → shows nodes n_api, n_db and version 1. 2) edit_diagram({ diagramId, baseVersion: 1, ops: [ { "op": "insert_between", "sourceId": "n_api", "targetId": "n_db", "newNode": { "id": "n_redis", "label": "Redis", "kind": { "catalog": "saas", "type": "redis" }, "parentId": "g_vpc" }, "inKind": "request", "outKind": "data_flow" } ] }) The API→DB edge is gone and now flows API→Redis→DB. Never send x/y/position — geometry is computed for you.…
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| baseVersion | integer | yes | The version you are editing against — get it from get_diagram. Stale → STALE_VERSION. |
| diagramId | string | yes | The diagram to edit (from create_diagram or get_diagram). |
| ops | array | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_diagram Get architecture diagram ~73
Fetch a diagram's raw IR (nodes, groups, edges with their real ids) and its current `version`. Call this before edit_diagram so your ops reference ids that actually exist and you pass the correct baseVersion. Returns { diagram, version }.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| diagramId | string | yes | The diagram to fetch. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Flowgraf MCP server?
Flowgraf is a hosted endpoint at https://flowgraf.in/api/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · flowgraf.in
claude mcp add --transport http in-flowgraf-flowgraf 'https://flowgraf.in/api/mcp'
What is the Flowgraf MCP server?
Flowgraf is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as in.flowgraf/flowgraf. Create and edit architecture diagrams from your AI agent; get an SVG and a live editable canvas. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://flowgraf.in/api/mcp).
Is the Flowgraf MCP server safe to use?
Flowgraf scores 25 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the Flowgraf MCP server expose?
Flowgraf exposes 3 tools: create_diagram, edit_diagram, get_diagram. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,586 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Flowgraf MCP server require authentication?
Its publisher declares no required credentials for Flowgraf. We have not been able to confirm that against the live endpoint, and a server can require authorisation without declaring it here.
Is the Flowgraf MCP server still maintained?
Flowgraf is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.