guard-core-mcp

Ecosystem registry

ecosystem

Read-onlyIdempotent

Survey the full Guard registry to resolve package names or compare engines, adapters, and telemetry agents across Python, Go, TypeScript, PHP, and Rust.

Instructions

Survey the whole Guard ecosystem: every language, engine, adapter and agent.

Use this to resolve a package name or compare languages. It takes no arguments. When you already know the language and framework, use adapter_setup for one adapter or wire_agent for the telemetry agent instead, which return less.

Returns the full registry for five languages (python, go, typescript, php, rust). Each language entry holds its engine (name, install command, version, release_status, conformance status), every framework adapter with a verified quick-start snippet and the Python adapter it maps to, and its telemetry agent with delivery semantics. A conformance block describes the frozen spec-4.0.2 corpus every engine is tested against, and a saas block documents the guard-core-app ingestion contract all agents share.

release_status is published (live on a package registry), tagged (a git tag exists, registry presence may lag) or untagged (install from source, main or a path dependency). Read it together with notes: several Go, PHP and Rust packages carry tags or version constants that registry publishing has not caught up with. Read-only static data that works with or without the Guard libraries installed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, but the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates the returned structure, explains the release_status enum semantics (published/tagged/untagged) and the caveat that Go/PHP/Rust registry publishing lags tags, and states it works with or without the Guard libraries installed. No contradiction with the read-only hints.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then routing, then return shape, then the release_status nuance — a sensible order. It is on the long side and the release_status paragraph is dense, but nearly every sentence carries task-relevant information rather than restating structured fields.

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 a rich output schema, the description summarizes the registry shape and the non-obvious release_status/notes interaction an agent needs to interpret results correctly. For a zero-argument, read-only survey tool, nothing material is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description even reinforces this ('It takes no arguments'), leaving nothing about invocation ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Survey the whole Guard ecosystem: every language, engine, adapter and agent') and explicitly scopes itself apart from siblings by naming adapter_setup and wire_agent and the condition that selects them. An agent can distinguish this from the other eight tools without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('resolve a package name or compare languages'), a hard constraint ('takes no arguments'), and named alternatives with the reason to prefer them ('which return less'). This is textbook routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server