Skip to main content
Glama
ChanMeng666

ArchLang

by ChanMeng666
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Score a plan against a brief (intent meter)

score
Read-onlyIdempotent

Measure how much of a brief's intent JSON a plan satisfies and return satisfaction ratio and subscores across edits to track convergence without gating.

Instructions

Measure how much of a brief's intent JSON a plan satisfies, without gating. Returns { ok, satisfied, total, score, subscores, violations }, where score is satisfied/total in [0,1] (an empty intent scores 1); call it across edits to watch a plan approach the brief. The intent's shape is the archlang://intent-schema resource. A malformed intent returns { ok:false, intentErrors } as data, never an exception.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
briefYesA brief's intent JSON (shape: the archlang://intent-schema resource) to measure against.
sourceYesArchLang source.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the exact return shape, score semantics including the empty-intent edge case, malformed-intent error behavior as data rather than an exception, and the non-gating nature of the tool.

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 definition is front-loaded with the purpose, then return semantics, usage context, schema pointer, and error behavior. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundancy.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the return fields, score calculation, empty-intent behavior, and malformed-intent handling. Together with the full schema coverage, an agent has enough to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that `brief` is intent JSON with a referenced schema resource, but it adds little parameter-level syntax or semantics beyond the schema itself.

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 states a specific verb and resource: measuring how much of a brief's intent JSON a plan satisfies. The phrase 'without gating' implicitly distinguishes it from validate/lint-style siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear usage context ('call it across edits to watch a plan approach the brief') and a when-not signal ('without gating'), so the agent knows this is for measurement rather than enforcement. It does not name alternatives such as validate or lint directly.

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