Skip to main content
Glama

comment_contract

Add cross-reference comments to document contract relationships between validated producer and consumer files, ensuring clear communication of data dependencies.

Instructions

Add cross-reference comments to validated producer/consumer pairs. Documents the contract relationship in both files.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
producerDirYesPath to MCP server source directory
consumerDirYesPath to consumer source directory
toolNameYesName of the validated tool
dryRunNoPreview comments without writing to files (default: true)
styleNoComment style

Implementation Reference

  • Main handler for 'comment_contract' tool: parses input, extracts producer and consumer data, prepares options, and calls preview or add functions based on dryRun flag.
    case 'comment_contract': {
      const input = CommentContractInput.parse(args);
      log(`Commenting contract for tool: ${input.toolName}`);
      
      // Get both producer and consumer
      const producers = await extractProducerSchemas({ rootDir: input.producerDir });
      const consumers = await traceConsumerUsage({ rootDir: input.consumerDir });
      
      const producer = producers.find(p => p.toolName === input.toolName);
      const consumer = consumers.find(c => c.toolName === input.toolName);
      
      if (!producer) {
        throw new Error(`Tool "${input.toolName}" not found in producer at ${input.producerDir}`);
      }
      if (!consumer) {
        throw new Error(`Tool "${input.toolName}" not found in consumer at ${input.consumerDir}`);
      }
      
      const match = {
        toolName: input.toolName,
        producerLocation: producer.location,
        consumerLocation: consumer.callSite,
      };
      
      const commentOptions = {
        match,
        producer,
        consumer,
        style: input.style || 'block' as const,
        includeTimestamp: true,
      };
      
      if (input.dryRun !== false) {
        // Preview mode (default)
        const preview = previewContractComments(commentOptions);
        
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: JSON.stringify({
                success: true,
                mode: 'preview',
                toolName: input.toolName,
                producerPreview: preview.producerPreview,
                consumerPreview: preview.consumerPreview,
                note: 'Set dryRun: false to actually add these comments to files',
              }, null, 2),
            },
          ],
        };
      } else {
        // Actually add comments
        const result = await addContractComments(commentOptions);
        
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: JSON.stringify({
                success: result.success,
                mode: 'applied',
                toolName: input.toolName,
                producerFile: result.producerFile,
                consumerFile: result.consumerFile,
                producerComment: result.producerComment,
                consumerComment: result.consumerComment,
                error: result.error,
              }, null, 2),
            },
          ],
        };
      }
    }
  • Zod input schema for validating arguments to the comment_contract tool.
    const CommentContractInput = z.object({
      producerDir: z.string().describe('Path to MCP server source directory'),
      consumerDir: z.string().describe('Path to consumer source directory'),
      toolName: z.string().describe('Name of the validated tool'),
      dryRun: z.boolean().optional().describe('Preview comments without writing to files (default: true)'),
      style: z.enum(['jsdoc', 'inline', 'block']).optional().describe('Comment style (default: block)'),
    });
  • src/index.ts:221-235 (registration)
    Tool registration in the listTools response, including name, description, and inputSchema.
    {
      name: 'comment_contract',
      description: 'Add cross-reference comments to validated producer/consumer pairs. Documents the contract relationship in both files.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          producerDir: { type: 'string', description: 'Path to MCP server source directory' },
          consumerDir: { type: 'string', description: 'Path to consumer source directory' },
          toolName: { type: 'string', description: 'Name of the validated tool' },
          dryRun: { type: 'boolean', description: 'Preview comments without writing to files (default: true)' },
          style: { type: 'string', enum: ['jsdoc', 'inline', 'block'], description: 'Comment style' },
        },
        required: ['producerDir', 'consumerDir', 'toolName'],
      },
    },
  • Helper function that actually modifies source files by adding contract comments to producer and consumer locations using ts-morph.
    export async function addContractComments(options: ContractCommentOptions): Promise<CommentResult> {
      const { match, producer, consumer } = options;
      const { producerComment, consumerComment } = generateContractComments(options);
      
      const project = new Project({
        skipAddingFilesFromTsConfig: true,
      });
    
      try {
        // Add comment to producer file
        const producerFile = project.addSourceFileAtPath(producer.location.file);
        const producerNode = findNodeAtLine(producerFile, producer.location.line);
        
        if (producerNode) {
          // Add comment before the tool definition
          producerNode.replaceWithText(`${producerComment}\n${producerNode.getText()}`);
        }
    
        // Add comment to consumer file
        const consumerFile = project.addSourceFileAtPath(consumer.callSite.file);
        const consumerNode = findNodeAtLine(consumerFile, consumer.callSite.line);
        
        if (consumerNode) {
          // Add comment before the callTool invocation
          consumerNode.replaceWithText(`${consumerComment}\n${consumerNode.getText()}`);
        }
    
        // Save changes
        await project.save();
    
        return {
          success: true,
          producerFile: producer.location.file,
          consumerFile: consumer.callSite.file,
          producerComment,
          consumerComment,
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          success: false,
          producerFile: producer.location.file,
          consumerFile: consumer.callSite.file,
          producerComment,
          consumerComment,
          error: error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error),
        };
      }
    }
  • Helper function to preview the comments that would be added, without modifying files.
    export function previewContractComments(options: ContractCommentOptions): {
      producerPreview: string;
      consumerPreview: string;
    } {
      const { producerComment, consumerComment } = generateContractComments(options);
      const { producer, consumer } = options;
      
      return {
        producerPreview: `// At ${producer.location.file}:${producer.location.line}\n${producerComment}`,
        consumerPreview: `// At ${consumer.callSite.file}:${consumer.callSite.line}\n${consumerComment}`,
      };
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions adding comments and documenting relationships, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this modifies files (implied by 'dryRun' parameter), what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the output looks like. For a tool that likely writes to files, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 two concise sentences that efficiently state the action and purpose. It's front-loaded with the core function. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the 'what' from the 'why', but overall it's lean and effective.

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 complexity (file modification tool with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like side effects (file writes), error handling, or what constitutes 'validated' pairs. For a tool that likely performs mutations, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'producerDir' and 'consumerDir' relate to 'validated pairs' or what 'style' options mean in practice). Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Add cross-reference comments') and target ('validated producer/consumer pairs'), with the purpose to 'Documents the contract relationship in both files.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'compare' or 'trace_usage' by focusing on documentation rather than analysis or tracing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'scaffold_consumer/producer' might also involve documentation).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'validated producer/consumer pairs' but doesn't clarify what validation entails or how this differs from other tools like 'trace_file' or 'extract_schemas' that might handle similar concepts. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Mnehmos/mnehmos.trace.mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server