Skip to main content
Glama

Axint

by io.github.agenticempire

axint.project.pack

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate the Axint project-start pack for a new Apple app without writing files. Use: use to bootstrap a new Apple project with Axint instructions; use project.index to inspect an existing project. Inputs: cwd and projectName identify the project; host choices control generated integration files. Effects: read-only generated file pack; writes no files and uses no network.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoMCP mode. local uses npx stdio; remote uses mcp.axint.ai.
agentNoAgent target. Defaults to all.
formatNoOutput format. Defaults to markdown.
targetDirNoProject directory label to embed in the report.
projectNameNoProject name to embed in the generated instructions.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
isErrorNo

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description confirms the read-only nature and adds that it writes no files and uses no network, which complements the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences with purpose, usage, and effects; efficient but includes slight redundancy ('without writing files' vs 'writes no files'). Well front-loaded overall.

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?

Given the rich output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and effects. The only gap is the misleading 'cwd' reference, which introduces potential confusion during invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description introduces 'cwd' as an input, but the schema has no such parameter; it also vaguely refers to 'host choices' instead of naming the `agent` parameter. Despite 100% schema coverage, these inaccuracies mislead the agent.

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 states a specific action ('Generate the Axint project-start pack') plus scope ('for a new Apple app') and explicitly contrasts with sibling `project.index`, making differentiation clear.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: use this to bootstrap a new project, and use `project.index` for existing projects, so the agent knows exactly when to choose this tool over an alternative.

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