Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@forgespace/ui-mcp

@forgespace/ui-mcp

Official
by Forge-Space
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

forge_assess

Assess project health across dependencies, architecture, security, quality, and migration readiness. Get scores, grades, and prioritized findings.

Instructions

Run a full project health assessment across 5 categories (dependencies, architecture, security, quality, migration-readiness). Returns scores, grades, migration readiness, and prioritized findings.

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": {
      "directory": "<directory>"
    },
    "name": "forge_assess"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
directoryYesAbsolute path to the project directory
max_filesNoMaximum files to scan (default: 500)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.25.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. The term 'assessment' implies safety but is not explicit.

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 two concise sentences that immediately state the action, categories, and output. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose and output. It could mention that the directory must exist, but the schema's required field and description handle that partially.

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 descriptions for both parameters ('directory' as absolute path, 'max_files' with default). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 runs a full project health assessment across 5 specific categories and returns scores, grades, migration readiness, and prioritized findings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like assess_legacy_codebase or forge_scan by specifying the comprehensive scope and output.

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 does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context-specific recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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