Skip to main content
Glama

Carrick

by io.github.carrick-tools
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check a consumer against a producer

check_compatibility
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a consumer service's calls against a producer's operations: missing or unused operations, plus stored type verdicts (coverage in type_verdicts). Read status first. It reads compatible, incompatible, partially_checked, or unresolved where nothing was compared, and pairs_compared and pairs_uncompared say how much of the pair the check reached. Call it before removing or changing any route, shape, field, or event. Consumers that reach the producer through a published SDK package have no call site of their own and are listed separately in via_sdk, never merged into the direct pairs. For whole-project topology, use get_service_graph first. To read both sides' types for the operations a verdict names, use get_contract_pair. Reference: https://docs.carrick.tools/mcp-tools

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoFilter by HTTP path, GraphQL field, or socket event name. A `{field=value}` dispatch suffix narrows to one case. On a large pair this is what narrows the answer; paging alone cannot.
repoNoYour repo as owner/repo (git remote) or just the repo name. Resolves which Carrick project to query.
limitNoIssue rows per page (default 50, max 200). Errors come first; issue_counts counts every category. A page is cut further when the response would be too long to read inline.
methodNoFilter by operation label: HTTP method (GET, POST), GraphQL kind (QUERY, MUTATION), or socket direction (CLIENT->SERVER, SERVER->CLIENT, UNKNOWN). UNKNOWN also selects HTTP routes whose verb the scan could not read; each row names its protocol.
offsetNoIssue rows to skip (default 0). Pass the `next_offset` from a previous call to page through.
projectNoCarrick project slug to query. Omit to auto-resolve via `repo`, or omit both when the workspace has one project.
consumer_serviceYesThe service making API calls
producer_serviceYesThe service exposing endpoints

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot: the possible status values (compatible, incompatible, partially_checked, unresolved) and what each means, how pairs_compared/pairs_uncompared quantify coverage, and the important caveat that SDK-mediated consumers appear in via_sdk and are never merged into direct pairs.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action, then layers status semantics before the routing guidance. It is denser than most definitions but each sentence carries load; the split across response semantics and sibling routing is efficient rather than padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return semantics, and it does: verdict categories, pair coverage counters, and the via_sdk exception. It also cites a reference URL for deeper documentation, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters including path, method, limit/offset paging, and project resolution. The description adds usage semantics for the response fields (status, pairs_compared, pairs_uncompared, via_sdk) but nothing about parameter syntax or formats beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb and resource ('Check a consumer service's calls against a producer's operations') and enumerates the verdict categories it produces (missing/unused operations, stored type verdicts). An agent can distinguish it from data-retrieval siblings like get_callers or get_operation immediately.

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 gives an explicit precondition ('Call it before removing or changing any route, shape, field, or event') and routes to named alternatives with conditions: get_service_graph for whole-project topology first, get_contract_pair for reading both sides' types. When-to-use, ordering, and alternatives are all present.

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

All Carrick toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources