Generate tests from the architectural graph. 40x fewer tokens. PRO — requires API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| branch | No | main | |
| api_key | Yes | ||
| repo_url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions API key requirement and token efficiency but fails to state if generation is read-only or has side effects, rate limits, or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very short, but the key action is front-loaded. However, the '40x fewer tokens' claim and 'PRO' tagline are not essential for understanding usage, so the brevity sacrifices valuable detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters lacking schema descriptions and no guidance on usage context, the description is incomplete. Output schema exists but does not compensate for missing input semantics and when-to-use advice.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'api_key' as required. It does not explain 'query', 'repo_url', or 'branch', leaving the agent without meaning beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates tests from the architectural graph, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like hokmah_generate_code and hokmah_analyze by focusing on tests, though 'test' meaning could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like hokmah_generate_code or hokmah_analyze. The only usage hint is 'PRO — requires API key', which is a limitation, not a decision guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: analyzing impact, connecting external MCP, connecting project, generating code, and generating tests. No two tools overlap in function, and descriptions clarify the differences.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'hokmah_verb_noun' with snake_case. Verbs are descriptive and imperative, and the prefix is uniform, making the naming predictable.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped. It covers analysis, connections, and generation without being bloated or insufficient for its apparent purpose.
The tool set covers core workflows: analysis, project setup, code and test generation. Missing features like graph querying or connection management are minor gaps, but the surface is largely complete for the domain.