Skip to main content
Glama

Axint

by io.github.agenticempire

axint.scaffold

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a starter TypeScript intent file from a name and description. Returns a complete defineIntent() source string ready to save as a .ts file — no files are written, no network requests made. On invalid domain values, returns an error string. The output compiles directly with axint.compile. Use: use to create a small TypeScript intent starter; use templates.get for richer examples and compile for Swift output. Inputs: name must be PascalCase; params define the starter contract; domain defaults to general. Effects: read-only generated TypeScript; writes no files and uses no network.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPascalCase intent name, e.g., 'SendMessage' or 'CreateEvent'. Must start with an uppercase letter and contain no spaces.
domainNoApple App Intent domain.
paramsNoInitial parameters for the intent.
descriptionYesHuman-readable description of what the intent does, shown to users in Shortcuts and Spotlight, e.g., 'Send a message to a contact'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
isErrorNo

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds concrete behavioral context beyond these: no files are written, no network requests made, returns an error string on invalid domain, and output compiles directly with axint.compile. 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 well-structured with clear sections (Use, Inputs, Effects) and front-loaded purpose. Minor repetition of 'writes no files and uses no network' appears twice, but overall it is efficient and scannable.

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 presence of an output schema and 4 parameters, the description fully covers what the tool does, its return value, error behavior, and relationship to siblings. It also explains the compile integration with axint.compile, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 adds useful semantics: 'name must be PascalCase' (reinforces schema), 'params define the starter contract', and 'domain defaults to general' (not in schema). This adds value beyond the structured schema.

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 generates a starter TypeScript intent file from a name and description, and that it returns a defineIntent() source string. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by recommending templates.get for richer examples and compile for Swift output.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'use to create a small TypeScript intent starter; use templates.get for richer examples and compile for Swift output.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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