Skip to main content
Glama

RegexForge

Server Details

Deterministic regex synthesis from labeled examples. Zero LLM, proof matrix, backtracking audit.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
walkojas-boop/regexforge
GitHub Stars
0
Server Listing
RegexForge

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool has a clear, distinct purpose focused on regex synthesis from examples, making disambiguation perfect.

Naming Consistency5/5

Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect. The tool name 'regexforge_synth' follows a clear pattern (verb_noun style) and is the sole representation, so no inconsistency exists.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is too few for a server named 'RegexForge', which implies a broader regex-related domain. While the tool is powerful, the scope feels thin, lacking operations like regex testing, validation, or manipulation, making it borderline inadequate for the apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is severely incomplete for a regex domain. It only covers synthesis from examples, missing essential operations such as regex matching, searching, splitting, or debugging. This creates significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures when handling common regex tasks.

Available Tools

1 tool
regexforge_synthAInspect

Synthesize a battle-tested regex from labeled examples. Input: optional natural-language description + 20 examples (10 positive, 10 negative, or any mix of ≥4). Output: regex + flags + test matrix proving every example is handled correctly + backtracking-risk analysis. Deterministic; no LLM at serve time.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
examplesYes
descriptionNoOptional natural-language description, used only for tie-breaking.
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the output includes 'regex + flags + test matrix + backtracking-risk analysis', notes it's 'deterministic; no LLM at serve time', and implies processing constraints (e.g., 'battle-tested'). This goes beyond basic functionality to inform about reliability, output structure, and implementation details.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action and immediately detailing input/output specifics. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second specifies input requirements, the third lists output components, and the fourth notes behavioral traits. No wasted words, making it efficient and clear.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (regex synthesis with analysis), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, input format, output components, and key behaviors. However, it could improve by mentioning error handling or performance limits (e.g., time/compute constraints), slightly reducing completeness for a sophisticated tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50% (only the 'match' parameter has a description). The description compensates by explaining the 'examples' parameter semantics ('20 examples, 10 positive, 10 negative, or any mix of ≥4') and the 'description' parameter's purpose ('used only for tie-breaking'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema. It doesn't fully detail all schema aspects but significantly enhances understanding.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('synthesize a battle-tested regex') and resources ('from labeled examples'). It distinguishes what the tool does (generate regex with analysis) from generic regex tools by specifying the input format and deterministic nature. No siblings exist, but the description stands alone as highly specific.

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 usage through input requirements ('20 examples, 10 positive, 10 negative, or any mix of ≥4'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since no sibling tools are provided, there are no explicit alternatives mentioned, but the description could better guide on optimal scenarios (e.g., for regex generation from examples rather than from scratch).

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.