Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
claude-engram

claude-engram

by 20alexl
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

code_quality_check

Analyze code to detect long functions, vague names, and deep nesting, helping improve code quality and identify AI-generated slop.

Instructions

Check code for AI slop: long functions, vague names, deep nesting.

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "code_quality_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYes
languageNopython

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the purpose but does not disclose whether the tool modifies code, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. The word 'check' implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 description is a single sentence with no fluff, making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could benefit from slightly more detail in a structured format.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of issues or a score), or any constraints like maximum code length. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's full behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. However, it provides no additional context for the 'code' or 'language' parameters beyond their names. No format, size limits, or examples are given.

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 clearly states it checks code for 'AI slop' including specific issues like long functions, vague names, and deep nesting. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'code_pattern_check' which likely targets different patterns.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'code_pattern_check' or 'scout_analyze'. No prerequisites or context for invocation are provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools