Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@4da/mcp-server

@4da/mcp-server

Official
by 4DA-Systems
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Decision alignment check

check_decision_alignment
Read-only

Verify if a technology or architecture pattern matches recorded developer decisions before suggesting a major tech change, new library, or architecture shift.

Instructions

Check whether a technology or pattern aligns with the developer's recorded decisions. Call BEFORE suggesting a major tech change, new library, or architecture shift.

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": {
      "technology": "<technology>"
    },
    "name": "check_decision_alignment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patternNoArchitecture pattern to check (e.g., 'microservices', 'event-driven')
technologyYesTechnology name to check (e.g., 'postgresql', 'redis', 'graphql')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv6.0.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the behavioral guidance to call before changes, but doesn't disclose return format, rate limits, or what happens if no decisions are recorded. Adds some value beyond annotations but leaves gaps.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: first states what it does, second states when to use it. No wasted words, front-loaded purpose.

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?

For a read-only check with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and timing. It could mention what the check returns (e.g., aligned/misaligned) or how to interpret results, but is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description and examples. The description itself adds no parameter details, so it meets the baseline 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (alignment with recorded decisions), and distinguishes itself from siblings like dependency_check and decision_memory by naming what it validates. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from decision_memory, which likely stores decisions, but the purpose is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells the agent when to call: 'BEFORE suggesting a major tech change, new library, or architecture shift.' This is a clear pre-action trigger that no sibling provides.

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