Skip to main content
Glama

Axint

by io.github.agenticempire

axint.schema.compile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compile a minimal JSON schema directly to Swift, bypassing the TypeScript DSL entirely. Supports intents, views, components, widgets, and full apps via the 'type' parameter. Uses ~20 input tokens vs hundreds for TypeScript — ideal for LLM agents optimizing token budgets. Use: use for token-light JSON-to-Swift generation; use compile for full TypeScript DSL control and scaffold for TS starters. Inputs: schema kind selects intent, view, widget, or app output; options add companion metadata. Effects: read-only Swift generation; writes no files and uses no network.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoView/widget only.
nameYesPascalCase name, e.g., 'CreateEvent' for intents, 'EventListView' for views, 'StepsWidget' for widgets. Used as the Swift struct name.
typeYesWhat to compile.
entryNoWidget only. Timeline entry fields as { fieldName: typeString }.
propsNoView only. Prop definitions as { fieldName: typeString }.
stateNoView only.
titleNoHuman-readable title shown in Shortcuts/Spotlight. Intent only.
domainNoApple App Intent domain. Intent only.
formatNoWhen true (default), pipes generated Swift through swift-format with Axint's.
paramsNoIntent only. Parameter definitions as { fieldName: typeString }.
scenesNoApp only. Scene definitions for the @main App struct.
familiesNoWidget only.
platformNoOptional target Apple platform hint for view/widget generation.
descriptionNoDescription of what this intent/view/widget does.
displayNameNoWidget only. Human-readable name shown in the widget gallery.
componentKindNoComponent only. Optional known component shape.
tokenNamespaceNoOptional Swift token enum generated by axint.tokens.ingest, e.g., 'SwarmTokens'.
refreshIntervalNoWidget only. Timeline refresh interval in minutes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
isErrorNo

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: 'read-only Swift generation; writes no files and uses no network,' clarifying side effects beyond the annotation hints. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra behavioral detail.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the core action, then covers supported types, token efficiency, usage alternatives, input summary, and effects. Every sentence adds value 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 the tool's complexity (18 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidance, token benefits, side effects, and alternatives. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining the 'type' parameter selects output kind and highlights the minimal JSON schema input, going slightly beyond the schema's per-field 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 compiles a minimal JSON schema directly to Swift, bypassing the TypeScript DSL. It explicitly lists supported output types (intents, views, components, widgets, apps) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compile and scaffold.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'use for token-light JSON-to-Swift generation; use compile for full TypeScript DSL control and scaffold for TS starters.' It also notes the token budget advantage, giving clear when-to-use context.

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