Skip to main content
Glama

Agentic Engineering Periodic System

repository_checklist

What a repository can show for each test, clause by clause, what it cannot, and the judging rules. Use it to check the current project; read the files yourself. Optional: element IDs, a role or a group to narrow it.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "repository_checklist"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsNo
roleNo
groupNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints at a limitation with 'read the files yourself' (suggesting the tool does not ingest file contents), but discloses nothing about output shape, permissions, or side effects, and the 'judging rules' phrase implies behavior that is never explained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, but the lead sentence is opaque rather than informative, so the front-loading does not pay off. It is compact without being genuinely economical.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema gets very little support here. The agent is left guessing at return format, the meaning of 'clause by clause' and 'judging rules', and how the filters interact.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does mention all three parameters conceptually ('element IDs, a role or a group') and identifies them as optional narrowing filters, which maps to ids, role, and group, but adds no format, syntax, or matching semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence ('What a repository can show for each test, clause by clause, what it cannot, and the judging rules') is convoluted and never names a clear verb+resource for the tool itself. 'Use it to check the current project' gestures at the purpose but is too vague to distinguish it from siblings find_elements, get_element, and overview.

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?

Only 'Use it to check the current project' is offered, with no when/when-not guidance and no comparison to the three sibling tools. The terse 'read the files yourself' hints at a usage constraint but is not framed as routing advice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources