AI Design Blueprint Doctrine

My Validation History (architecture + design + spec)

me.validation_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Pro/Teams — return the authenticated user's validation run history for all three lenses (architect.validate → validator='architecture', design.validate → validator='surface', spec.validate → validator='spec') with the Blueprint Readiness Score (0-100), letter grade (A-F), and tier (draft, emerging, production_ready). Each run carries a validator field naming its lens. Three lookup modes: (1) run_id=<id> returns a SINGLE run with the full persisted result_json — use this to RECOVER a result when your MCP client tool-call timed out before architect.validate, design.validate, or spec.validate returned. The run completes server-side and persists; the run_id is surfaced in the first progress notification of every validate call so you have the recovery handle even when your client gives up early. (2) repository=<name> returns the full per-run trend for that repository plus a regression diff between the latest two runs. (3) No arguments returns one summary per repository the user has validated, sorted by most recent. Use modes (2) or (3) BEFORE re-validating the same repository on either lens — they tell you which principles or laws regressed since the last run, so you can focus the new review on what is actually changing. Auth: Bearer . Pro or Teams plan required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of runs to return when scoped to a single repository. Capped at 50. Ignored when `run_id` is provided.
`run_id`	No	Single-run lookup by run_id (UUID). Returns the persisted result_json verbatim — the same payload architect.validate would have returned if your client hadn't timed out. Use this to recover a result when your MCP tool-call closed before the server returned. Per-run authorisation: returns only runs owned by the calling user.
`repository`	No	Repository name or path to scope the history to. Pass the same value you would pass to architect.validate. Omit to get one summary per repository. Mutually exclusive with `run_id` — if both are passed, `run_id` wins.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable context: runs complete server-side, run_id is surfaced in progress notifications for recovery, and per-run authorization. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is fairly long but well-structured with numbered modes and clear points. Every sentence adds necessary detail. Slightly verbose but not wasteful; front-loaded with key info.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (three modes, recovery, trend, auth), the description covers all essential aspects: output fields (score, grade, tier, validator), use cases, and plan requirements. No gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds behavioral context beyond schema, especially for run_id (timeout recovery, UUID format, persistence). This enhances understanding of parameter interactions.

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?

The description clearly states it returns validation run history for all three lenses (architecture, design, spec) with specific scores and grades. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform individual validates, focusing on history/recovery.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly describes three modes with when to use each: run_id for recovering timed-out calls, repository for trend analysis, no args for summary. Advises to use modes (2) or (3) before re-validating to avoid redundant work. Also specifies auth and plan requirements.

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

All AI Design Blueprint Doctrine tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct purpose. For example, architect.validate vs architect.validate_consensus differ in single-shot vs consensus; handoffs.agency, handoffs.operator, and handoffs.partnership are separated by engagement type. No significant overlap.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools follow a consistent dot-notation grouping (architect.*, clusters.*, examples.*, guides.*, handoffs.*, me.*, principles.*, signals.*, team.*) with predictable verbs (validate, list, get, search, add, etc.). Minor deviation: some underscore within names (e.g., me.add_evidence) but overall pattern holds.

Tool Count4/5

24 tools is on the higher side but justified given the broad domain spanning validation, certification, learning, handoffs, and feedback. Each tool has a clear role, and the count reflects the platform's comprehensive scope without feeling bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full workflow (validate → consensus → certify), discovery (principles, clusters, examples, guides), personal progress (learning path, coaching, evidence), handoffs (support, partnership, agency), feedback, and team summaries. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?