Skip to main content
Glama

myco_winnow

Validate the structural completeness of a craft proposal against protocol shape, returning pass/fail verdict and violations to fix before declaring it landed.

Instructions

Gate a docs/primordia/ craft proposal against the craft protocol shape: 3 (or 5) rounds present, required sections (Claim / Self-Rebuttal / Revision / Counter-Rebuttal / Reflection) populated, frontmatter keys complete, body is not mostly template boilerplate (> 40% boilerplate triggers G6), etc. Returns pass/fail verdict and specific violations.

Use this: after fruit scaffolds a craft doc and the agent fills in the tensions and revisions — winnow tells whether the proposal has enough substance to land. Do NOT use winnow as a content quality check (it checks STRUCTURE, not whether the argument is good). For content review, human judgment still applies.

Side effects: none. Pure read.

Returns: { exit_code, proposal, verdict: 'pass'|'fail', round_count, body_chars, violations: [ { gate, message } ], frontmatter_keys }. exit_code 0 on pass, 1 on fail. Agents typically fix violations and re-winnow until pass before declaring a craft 'LANDED'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proposalYesPath to the craft proposal markdown under docs/primordia/ (relative to substrate root or absolute). Must exist and be a valid markdown file with a craft-shaped YAML frontmatter block. Winnow reads but does not modify the file; post-winnow, the agent edits to address violations and re-runs winnow.
project_dirNoAbsolute path of the workspace / project whose Myco substrate this call targets. Overrides auto-discovery. When omitted, Myco resolves via MCP roots/list, then MYCO_PROJECT_DIR, then cwd — the substrate_pulse field in every response echoes which source answered.
Behavior4/5

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

States 'Side effects: none. Pure read.' and describes return format and typical workflow (fix and re-winnow). No annotations provided, but the description adequately covers behavioral traits for a read-only structure checker.

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 concise (~150 words) yet packed with essential information. It is well-structured: purpose, usage guidelines, side effects, return format. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description provides detailed return format. Input params are fully documented. The tool's complexity is well addressed with necessary context for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the 'proposal' parameter (path, file requirements) and 'project_dir' (override logic, fallback chain), going beyond schema descriptions.

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 it gates a craft proposal against the craft protocol shape, checking structural requirements like rounds, sections, frontmatter, and boilerplate. It returns pass/fail verdict and specific violations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 says 'Use this: after fruit scaffolds a craft doc...' and 'Do NOT use winnow as a content quality check... For content review, human judgment still applies.' This clearly specifies when and when not to use, with alternatives.

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/Battam1111/Myco'

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