Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vivac

vivac

by JAAvila-Of
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Record the command that verifies a rule

vivac_arm

Attach or remove a rule verification command in the provenance tree; commands are stored, never run, and rules without executable checks remain judged.

Instructions

Attach or remove a rule verification command; vivac stores but never runs it. Its directory is relative to the tree root. Rules without executable checks remain judged; do not invent a test to label them verified.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "command": "<command>",
      "dir": "<dir>"
    },
    "name": "vivac_arm"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesNode ID or alias, e.g. t4.
dirYesExisting working directory relative to the tree root.
offNoRemove this command instead of adding it.
commandYesVerification command; stored, never executed by vivac.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.22.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / command / description
      Previous value: -"The command or test that verifies it, as someone would type it."New value: +"Verification command; stored, never executed by vivac."
    • changedInput schema / properties / dir / description
      Previous value: -"The folder the command runs in, relative to the folder that holds .vivac: vivac, say, or . for that folder itself. It has to exist."New value: +"Existing working directory relative to the tree root."
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"The rule, as the tree names it: r12."New value: +"Node ID or alias, e.g. t4."
    • changedInput schema / properties / off / description
      Previous value: -"Remove this command, in this folder, from the rule instead of adding it."New value: +"Remove this command instead of adding it."
  2. First observedv0.17.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false); the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that vivac 'stores but never runs it', so the agent knows no execution or side effects beyond storage occur. It also discloses the path-resolution behavior, which the schema states only tersely. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action and then the constraint, with no padding. The clause 'Rules without executable checks remain judged' is slightly compressed to the point of ambiguity, which keeps it from a 5.

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 four-parameter state-mutating tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what is stored, what is not executed, path scoping, and the off-removal path. It omits error conditions (unknown id, nonexistent dir) but nothing that would cause a misinvocation.

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 all four parameters are already documented in structured fields, and the description's note that the command is 'stored, never executed' is largely a restatement of the schema text. It adds only marginal, indirect meaning (e.g., dir is relative to tree root) rather than new semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb pair and resource: 'Attach or remove a rule verification command', which tells an agent exactly what state changes. It is distinguishable from data-oriented siblings like vivac_rules or vivac_find, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 when-not-to-use instruction ('do not invent a test to label them verified') and clarifies that rules without checks 'remain judged', which is genuine guidance about edge conditions. What is missing is routing guidance toward alternatives (e.g., vivac_rules for plain rule creation), so it stops short of a 5.

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