Skip to main content
Glama

validate_immune_rule

Valida una regla inmunológica (Nivel 4).

Analiza una regla 'automatica' marcada como REGLA INMUNOLÓGICA:
1. Verifica snapshots pre-cambio vinculados en memory_links
2. Detecta reglas contradictorias sobre el mismo archivo/proyecto
3. Reporta reglas huérfanas (>30d sin enlaces entrantes)

Args:
    rule_id: ID de la regla inmunológica a validar.

Returns:
    Reporte de validación con recomendaciones.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rule_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the tool's behavior (validates, verifies snapshots, detects contradictions, reports orphans) and indicates a read-only validation role, returning a report. It does not mention side effects or state changes, which would be a gap, but the described actions imply no modification.

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 with three bullet points for the analysis steps. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is easy to parse, making it efficient for an agent.

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?

The description covers the purpose, the specific checks performed, and the output (validation report with recommendations). It lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but for the given scope it provides sufficient context for an agent to know what to expect. The input schema is simple and fully described.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The only parameter, rule_id, is clearly explained as the ID of the immune rule to validate. The description adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, making the parameter's purpose unambiguous.

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 it validates an immune rule (Nivel 4) and lists three specific analysis steps (verifies snapshots, detects contradictions, reports orphans). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other operations like search, graph, or maintenance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for validating immune rules, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus other similar tools (e.g., review_automatica). No clear 'use when' or 'do not use when' guidance is provided, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources