covenant_rules
Evaluate threshold/covenant rules over spreadsheet-like rows with provenance. Use either rules or rule_pack.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | Yes | ||
| rules | No | ||
| rule_pack | No |
NumProof
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose behavioral details such as idempotency, destructive potential, authentication requirements, return format, or what 'with provenance' means operationally.
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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, achieving maximum conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite low complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description is too brief. It lacks details on parameter structure, expected output, and when to use compared to siblings. Important context like what constitutes 'provenance' is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds only that 'rows' are 'spreadsheet-like' and that 'rules' and 'rule_pack' are alternatives, but it does not explain their formats, constraints, or how they interact.
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 explicitly states the action 'evaluate' and the resource 'threshold/covenant rules over spreadsheet-like rows with provenance'. It also mentions the two alternative input formats. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like audit_rows or verify_claim, which could also involve evaluation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: 'Use either rules or rule_pack.' It does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or when it should not be used.
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.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct task: auditing spreadsheet integrity, evaluating covenants, comparing versions, and verifying claims. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
Three tools use verb_noun pattern (audit_rows, diff_rows, verify_claim). covenant_rules breaks the pattern but is still clear and readable.
Tool Count5/5
4 tools is well-scoped for a specialized server focused on spreadsheet analysis and verification. No extraneous tools.
Completeness4/5
Coverage is good for auditing and verification tasks. Missing features like data import/export or row editing are not core to the stated purpose, so only a minor gap.