Skip to main content
Glama

check_naming

Assess if an identifier follows project naming conventions, detecting inconsistencies like 'n_dims' vs 'ndim' and returning a consistent/inconsistent verdict with the canonical form and suggestions.

Instructions

Check if an identifier follows project naming conventions — detects inconsistencies like 'n_dims' vs the project's 'ndim' convention, or 'numFeatures' vs 'nb_features'. Returns a consistent/inconsistent verdict with the canonical form and suggestions. Use before committing new code or when reviewing identifier names.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
identifierYesThe identifier to check (e.g. 'n_dims')

Implementation Reference

  • Schema/definition for the check_naming tool: defines mcpName, label, description, promptSnippet, and parameter schema (identifier string).
    {
      mcpName: "check_naming",
      label: "Check Naming",
      description:
        "Check if an identifier follows project naming conventions. " +
        "Returns consistent/inconsistent verdict with canonical form.",
      promptSnippet:
        "ontomics_check_naming: validate identifier against project conventions",
      parameters: Type.Object({
        identifier: Type.String({
          description: "Identifier to check (e.g. 'n_dims')",
        }),
      }),
    },
  • Registration loop: iterates over all tool definitions (including check_naming) and registers them with pi.registerTool(), wiring the execute handler that calls the MCP client.
    for (const def of toolDefs()) {
      pi.registerTool({
        name: `ontomics_${def.mcpName}`,
        label: def.label,
        description: def.description,
        promptSnippet: def.promptSnippet,
        promptGuidelines: [
          "Use ontomics tools BEFORE grep/glob for semantic codebase questions.",
        ],
        parameters: def.parameters,
        async execute(_toolCallId, params, _signal, onUpdate, _ctx) {
          onUpdate?.({
            content: [{ type: "text", text: `Querying ontomics: ${def.mcpName}...` }],
          });
          try {
            const mcp = await getClient();
            const text = await mcp.callTool(def.mcpName, cleanArgs(params));
            return { content: [{ type: "text", text }] };
          } catch (err) {
            throw new Error(
              `ontomics ${def.mcpName} failed: ${err instanceof Error ? err.message : String(err)}`,
            );
          }
        },
      });
    }
  • The actual handler logic via MCP client: callTool dispatches the tool name (e.g. 'check_naming') to the ontomics binary over stdio JSON-RPC. The execute closure (lines 372-386) calls this method.
    async callTool(
      name: string,
      args: Record<string, unknown>,
    ): Promise<string> {
      const result = (await this.request("tools/call", {
        name,
        arguments: args,
      })) as { content?: Array<{ text?: string }> };
      const text = result.content?.[0]?.text ?? JSON.stringify(result);
      return text;
    }
Behavior4/5

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

Clearly describes it returns a verdict, canonical form, and suggestions. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so adequately, though it could explicitly state no side effects.

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 sentences with examples and usage context—no wasted words. Front-loaded with 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?

Covers purpose, examples, usage guidance, and return type. Without output schema, the description of the verdict is slightly vague but sufficient.

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%, and the description adds an example but no additional semantics beyond the schema's description of 'identifier'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool checks identifier naming conventions with specific examples ('n_dims' vs 'ndim'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'suggest_name' or 'list_conventions'.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before committing new code or when reviewing identifier names', providing good context. However, it does not mention when not to use or list 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/EtienneChollet/ontomics'

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