Skip to main content
Glama
JAAvila-Of

vivac

by JAAvila-Of
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Record the command that verifies a rule

vivac_arm

Record a command that verifies a rule in a folder, or remove one with off; the rule checker runs it, not the server.

Instructions

Record a command that verifies a rule and the folder it runs in, or with off, remove one. vivac never runs it: it hands it to whoever checks the rule. Call it the moment a test for a rule exists, because the day a rule became checkable is part of its history.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe rule, as the tree names it: r12.
dirYesThe folder the command runs in, relative to the folder that holds .vivac: vivac, say, or . for that folder itself. It has to exist.
offNoRemove this command, in this folder, from the rule instead of adding it.
commandYesThe command or test that verifies it, as someone would type it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.17.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that vivac never executes the command ('it hands it to whoever checks the rule') — a genuinely useful behavioral fact. It stops short of explaining duplicate/idempotency behavior despite idempotentHint=false.

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-loads the core action and the off-mode in the first sentence, then adds rationale. The closing clause about 'the day a rule became checkable is part of its history' is poetic and arguably speaking to motivation rather than mechanics, but it is short and does orient the agent's intent.

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?

For a write tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the add/remove duality and the non-execution behavior adequately. It leaves minor gaps around what happens on repeated calls (idempotentHint=false), but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, dir, command, and off. The description's mention of the 'off' removal mode and the 'folder it runs in' only restates what the schema provides, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 (record) and resource (a command that verifies a rule plus its folder), and explicitly covers the inverse mode ('or with off, remove one'). This is clearly distinguishable from 'declare a rule' or 'note something' siblings like vivac_declare/vivac_note.

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?

Gives an explicit timing trigger: 'Call it the moment a test for a rule exists.' That is actionable context for when to invoke it. However, it never names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so the sibling-routing guidance is incomplete.

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