Anchor Terminal

Check what you already run

check_stack

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks the tools you already run, like npm audit for an agent's stack. Give an MCP client config, package.json, go.mod, requirements.txt, endpoints or names. Each tool we list comes back with grade, status now, sunsets, breaking changes, advisories, changes since you last checked and better listings for the same job. Nothing is kept.

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": "check_stack"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`goMod`	No	A go.mod's text
`names`	No	Slugs, packages or owner/repo
`since`	No	When you last checked: a date or 7d (default 30d)
`watch`	No	Follow every listing matched, for your owner (needs a token from link_owner)
`weights`	No	As in search_tools, for the better listings
`endpoints`	No	URLs you call
`mcpConfig`	No	Your MCP client's config as is
`packageJson`	No	A package.json as is
`requirements`	No	A requirements.txt's text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 8, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / watch

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Follow every listing matched, for your owner (needs a token from link_owner)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: it enumerates the audit output (grade, status, sunsets, breaking changes, advisories, delta since last check, better listings) and explicitly states 'Nothing is kept,' which is a useful privacy guarantee not present in 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 front-loaded with purpose, then inputs, then outputs, then privacy. It is compact but every sentence carries useful information. The npm-audit analogy earns its place, though the return-field list is slightly dense.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 9-parameter, nested-schema audit tool with no output schema, the description does a good job covering inputs, outputs, and privacy. It does not explain the grade scale or what happens when no matches are found, but those are minor gaps given the otherwise complete framing.

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 explains each of the 9 parameters. The description's list of accepted input types (MCP config, package.json, go.mod, requirements.txt, endpoints, names) lightly mirrors those parameters but does not add syntax, format, or edge-case details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb (checks) and resource (tools you already run) and anchors it with a concrete analogy (npm audit for an agent's stack). It distinguishes itself from the single-server check_server sibling by accepting whole-stack inputs like MCP configs and manifests, and it previews the return fields, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the input forms to provide (MCP client config, package.json, go.mod, requirements.txt, endpoints or names) and implies use when auditing an existing stack. It does not explicitly name when to choose check_stack instead of check_server or search_tools, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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

All Anchor Terminal tools Inspect

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

Need Help?