Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Silent Door Repository Handoff Planner

by com.aibitious.silent
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

diagnose_a2a_request

Read-onlyIdempotent

Diagnose common A2A JSON-RPC SendMessage version and message-shape mistakes. Use when debugging an A2A integration. Send a sanitized request example and selected protocol version, never secrets or headers. Returns fixed field corrections and an authored template. Does not contact an endpoint or certify full conformance.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request": {
        "id": 1,
        "method": "message/send",
        "params": {
          "message": {
            "role": "user",
            "parts": [
              {
                "data": {
                  "entries": [
                    {
                      "kind": "file",
                      "path": "src/app.py"
                    }
                  ]
                },
                "kind": "data"
              }
            ],
            "messageId": "example-1"
          }
        },
        "jsonrpc": "2.0"
      },
      "protocolVersion": "0.3"
    },
    "name": "diagnose_a2a_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYesSanitized A2A JSON-RPC body to inspect, not a URL, string or HTTP wrapper. Malformed message fields are allowed for diagnosis. Never include secrets, headers or private content. Entire arguments JSON: at most 16384 ASCII-escaped UTF-8 bytes.
protocolVersionYesTarget A2A version from the server's Agent Card, NOT the MCP transport date.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "protocolVersion": "0.3",
+    "request": {
+      "id": 1,
+      "jsonrpc": "2.0",
+      "method": "message/send",
+      "params": {
+        "message": {
+          "messageId": "example-1",
+          "parts": [
+            {
+              "data": {
+                "entries": [
+                  {
+                    "kind": "file",
+                    "path": "src/app.py"
+                  }
+                ]
+              },
+              "kind": "data"
+            }
+          ],
+          "role": "user"
+        }
+      }
+    }
+  },
+  {
+    "protocolVersion": "1.0",
+    "request": {
+      "id": 1,
+      "jsonrpc": "2.0",
+      "method": "SendMessage",
+      "params": {
+        "message": {
+          "messageId": "example-1",
+          "parts": [
+            {
+              "data": {
+                "entries": [
+                  {
+                    "kind": "file",
+                    "path": "src/app.py"
+                  }
+                ]
+              }
+            }
+          ],
+          "role": "ROLE_USER"
+        }
+      }
+    }
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / protocolVersion / description
      Added value: +"Target A2A version from the server's Agent Card, NOT the MCP transport date."
    • addedInput schema / properties / request / description
      Added value: +"Sanitized A2A JSON-RPC body to inspect, not a URL, string or HTTP wrapper. Malformed message fields are allowed for diagnosis. Never include secrets, headers or private content. Entire arguments JSON: at most 16384 ASCII-escaped UTF-8 bytes."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it does not contact an endpoint and does not certify full conformance, which bounds the agent's expectations about what a 'diagnose' call can prove.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, trigger, input constraint, output and limits. Scope and the key safety warning are front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the expected return (fixed field corrections plus an authored template) and the boundaries (no endpoint contact, no conformance certification). Nothing needed to call or interpret it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters including the enum and the byte limit. The description reinforces the sanitization rule and the source of protocolVersion (Agent Card), but adds little syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Diagnose) plus the exact resource (A2A JSON-RPC SendMessage version and message-shape mistakes), which is far more precise than the tool name alone. The siblings (prepare_repository_handoff, repository_safety_preflight) are unrelated domains, so no differentiation is needed, but the scope statement is self-sufficient.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use when debugging an A2A integration" gives clear context, and "never secrets or headers" states a hard precondition. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Silent Door Repository Handoff Planner toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources