Skip to main content
Glama

Axint

by io.github.agenticempire

axint.project.index

Idempotent

Scan the local Apple project and write a compact .axint/context pack so Axint can reason over changed files, nearby SwiftUI surfaces, and interaction-risk files instead of only one source file at a time. Use: use before project-aware repair, multi-file SwiftUI work, or interaction-risk analysis. Inputs: changedFiles seed related-file discovery; dryRun returns the pack without writing .axint/context. Effects: writes .axint/context unless dryRun=true; reads local project files only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dryRunNoWhen true, returns the index without writing .axint/context files.
formatNoOutput format. Defaults to markdown.
targetDirNoProject directory to index. Defaults to the current working directory.
includeGitNoWhether to include git changed-file discovery. Defaults to true.
projectNameNoOptional project name override for the context pack.
changedFilesNoOptional changed files to pin into the context pack.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
isErrorNo

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds concrete effects: 'writes .axint/context unless dryRun=true; reads local project files only.' This clarifies write/read scope beyond the annotation hints, though it doesn't detail overwrite behavior or permissions.

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 three succinct sentences: purpose, usage, then inputs/effects. It is front-loaded with the action, avoids redundancy, and every sentence contributes essential information.

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 (6 optional params, output schema present), the description covers purpose, when to use, key input roles, and effects. The output schema handles return details, so missing return descriptions are fine. This is a complete and well-rounded description.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enhances semantics by explaining that 'changedFiles seed related-file discovery' and 'dryRun returns the pack without writing .axint/context,' adding value beyond schema descriptions.

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 the tool's function: 'Scan the local Apple project and write a compact .axint/context pack' for enabling reasoning over changed files, nearby SwiftUI surfaces, and interaction-risk files. This specific verb+resource+outcome distinguishes it from single-file tools and sibling tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use: use before project-aware repair, multi-file SwiftUI work, or interaction-risk analysis.' This gives clear when-to-use context, but does not mention when-not-to-use or name alternatives like axint.project.pack. Hence 4 rather than 5.

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

All Axint toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with descriptions specifying exact use cases (e.g., axint.activate for smoke test, axint.status for version). There is minor potential overlap between axint.suggest and axint.feature, but descriptions clarify suggestion vs generation.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent hierarchical pattern: 'axint.<category>.<action>' (e.g., axint.agent.advice, axint.swift.validate). Even standalone tools like axint.compile fit the pattern. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the typical 3-15 range for a well-scoped set. While the server covers a broad domain, the sheer number may overwhelm agents and reduce efficiency. A reduction or grouping would improve coherence.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full Axint development lifecycle: installation, compilation, validation, repair, upgrade, session management, and coordination. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated tool for deleting project artifacts), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources