Skip to main content
Glama

Axint

by io.github.agenticempire

axint.session.start

Start an enforced Axint agent session. Writes .axint/session/current.json plus token-scoped session history, refreshes .axint/AXINT_REHYDRATE.md, returns compact operating memory, docs context, a session token, and the exact axint.workflow.check args. Use: call at the start of a tool-enabled agent session or after context compaction. Inputs: cwd scopes session files; prior token and context inputs preserve continuity after compaction. Effects: writes .axint/session and rehydration artifacts; no auth or network required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentNoAgent target for the session. Defaults to all.
formatNoOutput format. Defaults to markdown.
platformNoTarget Apple platform, such as macOS, iOS, visionOS, or all.
targetDirNoProject directory where .axint/session/current.json and token-scoped session.
ttlMinutesNoHow long the session token remains valid. Defaults to 720 minutes.
projectNameNoProject name to embed in the session and returned context.
expectedVersionNoExpected Axint package version. Defaults to the running MCP version.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
isErrorNo

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With all annotation hints false, the description carries the burden and does so well by detailing write artifacts (.axint/session/current.json, AXINT_REHYDRATE.md), no auth/network requirement, and token/history continuity after compaction.

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?

Compact, front-loaded, and well-structured with Use/Inputs/Effects sections. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is redundant.

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?

For a session-bootstrap tool with 7 optional parameters and an output schema, it covers when to use, side effects, return contents, and environmental prerequisites. No major gaps; output schema handles return structure.

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 semantic value by explaining targetDir scoping and prior-token/context continuity, though 'cwd' and 'prior token/context inputs' are not explicit schema parameters, creating slight ambiguity.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Start an enforced Axint agent session') and enumerates concrete outputs (session file, rehydration doc, memory, token, workflow.check args). This clearly identifies its unique role versus 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?

Explicit 'Use:' instruction gives clear triggers: at the start of a tool-enabled agent session or after context compaction. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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