Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Hokmah

by io.github.davidangularme
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Assess a Feature Zone

hokmah_zone_health
Read-onlyIdempotent

Says how well a part of an imported repository is doing and what to do about it. zone is a path prefix (packages/cli/src/webhooks) or a few words ("MFA recovery codes"). Returns, from the last 12 months of history and the current code: a verdict (stable, active, growing, maintenance, fragile), fixes per feature and per 1000 lines, the recurring fix themes specific to the zone, giant files and functions, files often changed without tests, coupled areas, parallel implementations, and recommendations with the numbers behind each one. No language model is involved.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "repo_url": "<repo_url>",
      "zone": "<zone>"
    },
    "name": "hokmah_zone_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
zoneYes
repo_urlYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety side (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), and the description still adds useful behavior: it works from 12 months of history plus current code, it enumerates the verdict classes and the metrics returned, and it states that no language model is involved, which tells an agent the output is deterministic. It stops short of noting cost, latency or limits on zone size.

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?

The structure is front-loaded and sensible: purpose first, then the zone argument, then the returned evidence. The long enumeration of return items is dense but each item is substantive; there is little filler.

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?

It is complete enough for a two-parameter deterministic read tool. The return content is described in detail, the verdict vocabulary is enumerated, and the deterministic nature is flagged. Even though an output schema exists, the narrative description of the return makes the tool easier to select and interpret.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% across both parameters. The description explains 'zone' well with two concrete forms and the underlying semantics, but 'repo_url' is never mentioned: it does not say whether it is a clone URL, a GitHub URL, or a slug of an already-connected project, which is exactly the ambiguity a 0%-coverage schema leaves open.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a concrete verb-plus-resource: it assesses how well a named part of an imported repository is doing and what to do about it, and it explains that a zone is a path prefix or a short phrase. That distinguishes it from a whole-repo tool such as hokmah_overview, but it never names a sibling or states explicitly how it differs from hokmah_analyze, so a reader has to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated. The zone examples ('packages/cli/src/webhooks', 'MFA recovery codes') show the intended granularity, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over hokmah_analyze, hokmah_overview or hokmah_similar_fixes, and no prerequisites such as whether the repo must first be connected via hokmah_connect_project.

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

All Hokmah toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources