DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

StrategiX visual-spec HTML package

strategix_visual_spec_package

Read-onlyIdempotent

Package a canonical contract and rendered SVG into self-contained HTML with embedded JSON contract, source digest, fit report, compact metadata, and a human-readable x402 receipt block.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`contract`	Yes	Minimum viable StrategiX visual-spec contract. This is the source of truth; D2, Mermaid, Graphviz DOT, SVG, and draw.io XML are input or intermediate formats only.
`project_id`	No	Optional project namespace for compact search metadata.
`rendered_svg`	No	Optional pre-rendered SVG. If omitted, the service renders the contract first.
`source_digest`	No	Optional source digest ids or short source notes.
`payment_reference`	No	Optional x402 payment reference supplied by the caller or payment middleware.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedMay 16, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the output composition: embedded JSON contract, source digest, fit report, compact metadata, and x402 receipt block. This adds meaningful context about what the tool produces without contradicting the annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that is information-dense and free of filler. Every component mentioned contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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 rich schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for the core packaging purpose. It would benefit from an explicit note that rendered_svg is optional and the service can render the contract first, though this is already captured in the schema.

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 parameters. The description ties 'canonical contract and rendered SVG' to the main inputs but adds no additional detail for project_id, source_digest, or payment_reference 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Package') plus the resource ('canonical contract and rendered SVG') and the output ('self-contained HTML'). It distinguishes this tool from its siblings (render, validate, search) by describing the packaging responsibility.

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: when you have a canonical contract and SVG and need a self-contained HTML package. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus sibling tools like strategix_diagram_render or strategix_visual_spec_search, nor does it mention exclusions.

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

All DeltaSignal ATLAS-7 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Significant overlap exists between atlas7_* and deltasignal_* tools for the same concepts (covenant stress, readiness, peer ranking, morning brief, pressure board), and composite workflows coexist with their low-level components. The descriptions are detailed but the sheer number of similar-scope tools makes misselection likely.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent lower_snake_case pattern with a domain prefix (atlas7_, deltasignal_, strategix_). Verb-first names (generate_, resolve_, search_) and noun-only names (alpha_opportunities, readiness) are both used, but the convention is predictable enough to navigate.

Tool Count1/5

With 81 tools, the surface is far beyond the 25–50 range considered excessive. Many tools are composites, natural-language variants, or near-duplicates that could be consolidated, creating an extreme mismatch for typical MCP server scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is extensive, covering fundamentals, covenant stress, alpha screening, peer ranking, daily changes, briefs, historical ATLAS data, TripCode resolution, perp factors, synthetic ETF audit, and StrategiX rendering. Minor gaps exist (watchlist persistence, thesis lifecycle), but core research workflows are well covered.

Resources

Need Help?