Skip to main content
Glama

HALLUX

by dev.blvkware
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check a dependency file

hallux_check_manifest
Read-onlyIdempotent

Call this after writing or editing a dependency file, and before committing it. Supported: package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, go.mod.

Checks every dependency in one pass, including dev and optional groups, which is where an invented name usually arrives.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesThe file contents.
filenameYesThe file name, e.g. package.json. Path is ignored; only the name is used to pick a parser.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
blockedNoThe absent, phantom and squat results.
checkedNoHow many identifiers were checked.
resultsYesEvery result, in input order.
decisionYesBLOCK: do not proceed. REVIEW: something could not be verified. PROCEED: every identifier exists. NOTHING_TO_CHECK: no identifier was recognised.
filenameNoThe file name as received.
unverifiedNoThe unknown results.
safeToProceedYesFalse whenever anything was blocked.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "blocked": {
+      "description": "The absent, phantom and squat results.",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "confidence": {
+            "maximum": 1,
+            "minimum": 0,
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "evidence": {
+            "description": "What the verdict rests on: registry status and time, attestations, model families, nearest existing names.",
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "namespace": {
+            "description": "The namespace checked.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "reason": {
+            "description": "Why the verdict is unknown.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "recommendation": {
+            "description": "What to do next.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "successor": {
+            "description": "The name to use instead, when one is known.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "value": {
+            "description": "The identifier checked.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "verdict": {
+            "description": "exists and deprecated may proceed; absent, phantom and squat must not; unknown is never permission.",
+            "enum": [
+              "exists",
+              "deprecated",
+              "absent",
+              "phantom",
+              "squat",
+              "unknown"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "namespace",
+          "value",
+          "verdict",
+          "confidence"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "checked": {
+      "description": "How many identifiers were checked.",
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "decision": {
+      "description": "BLOCK: do not proceed. REVIEW: something could not be verified. PROCEED: every identifier exists. NOTHING_TO_CHECK: no identifier was recognised.",
+      "enum": [
+        "PROCEED",
+        "REVIEW",
+        "BLOCK",
+        "NOTHING_TO_CHECK"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "filename": {
+      "description": "The file name as received.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "description": "Every result, in input order.",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "confidence": {
+            "maximum": 1,
+            "minimum": 0,
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "evidence": {
+            "description": "What the verdict rests on: registry status and time, attestations, model families, nearest existing names.",
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "namespace": {
+            "description": "The namespace checked.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "reason": {
+            "description": "Why the verdict is unknown.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "recommendation": {
+            "description": "What to do next.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "successor": {
+            "description": "The name to use instead, when one is known.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "value": {
+            "description": "The identifier checked.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "verdict": {
+            "description": "exists and deprecated may proceed; absent, phantom and squat must not; unknown is never permission.",
+            "enum": [
+              "exists",
+              "deprecated",
+              "absent",
+              "phantom",
+              "squat",
+              "unknown"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "namespace",
+          "value",
+          "verdict",
+          "confidence"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "safeToProceed": {
+      "description": "False whenever anything was blocked.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "unverified": {
+      "description": "The unknown results.",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "confidence": {
+            "maximum": 1,
+            "minimum": 0,
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "evidence": {
+            "description": "What the verdict rests on: registry status and time, attestations, model families, nearest existing names.",
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "namespace": {
+            "description": "The namespace checked.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "reason": {
+            "description": "Why the verdict is unknown.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "recommendation": {
+            "description": "What to do next.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "successor": {
+            "description": "The name to use instead, when one is known.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "value": {
+            "description": "The identifier checked.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "verdict": {
+            "description": "exists and deprecated may proceed; absent, phantom and squat must not; unknown is never permission.",
+            "enum": [
+              "exists",
+              "deprecated",
+              "absent",
+              "phantom",
+              "squat",
+              "unknown"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "namespace",
+          "value",
+          "verdict",
+          "confidence"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "decision",
+    "safeToProceed",
+    "results"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by noting that it checks all dependencies in one pass, including dev and optional groups, which is a behavioral detail about coverage. No contradictions.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the critical 'when to call' guidance in the first sentence, then lists supported formats, then adds a helpful insight about dev/optional groups. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 an output schema exists, return-value documentation is unnecessary. The description covers when to use, supported inputs, and a non-obvious behavioral detail (dev/optional groups). This is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further ambiguity.

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 fully documents both parameters (filename and content). The description merely reinforces that filename selects a parser and lists supported names, but it does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already gives. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool checks a dependency file ('Call this after writing or editing a dependency file') and lists the supported formats, making its purpose concrete. It is distinguishable from the sibling 'hallux_check' by the narrow scope of dependency files, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 gives an explicit trigger: call it after writing/editing a dependency file and before committing. This is a clear usage condition. It does not compare against siblings, but the specific file-type scope implies when not to use it (i.e., for non-dependency checks).

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

All HALLUX toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources