crapkit

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Config and repo health check

check_config

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validates crapkit.toml against the repository to catch typo keys, empty scopes, missing lane cwds, and runners that fail to start. Run it first when tools behave strangely or ranking misses a file.

Instructions

Checks that crapkit.toml agrees with the repo: typo keys, empty scopes, missing lane cwds, runners that fail to start. Run it first when any tool answers strangely or the ranking misses a file, and list_runs when only the history is in question. It needs no run, probes each runner once, runs no lane, and any problem arrives with isError true. repo can be any directory under the checkout, and one with no crapkit.toml above it answers a pointer, never a parent's config.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	No	path to the scored repo's root (default: the repo the server was started in)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lanes`	No	per declared lane
`store`	No	the run store
`schema`	No	payload schema version, 1
`problems`	No	FAIL findings as sentences naming the fix; non-empty is exit 1 and the result carries isError true
`versions`	No	the tools behind every number
`warnings`	No	WARN findings: unmeasured directories, scopes with a lane but no scoped_tests template, artifacts written outside .crapkit, lanes without results_artifact; exit stays 0
`resources`	No	effective resource policy; limits and estimates, not sampled utilization
`newest_run`	No	the newest run, or null when nothing has run
`analysis_version`	No	the analysis semantics version; with the lizard version it stamps every ratchet mark, so a bump refuses old marks until the repo re-seeds

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.2Sep 9, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / resources

Added value: +{
+  "description": "effective resource policy; limits and estimates, not sampled utilization",
+  "properties": {
+    "available_cpus": {
+      "description": "CPUs visible to this process",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "budget_directory": {
+      "description": "coordination directory; status does not create it",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "coordination": {
+      "description": "worker slot ownership scope",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "cpu_probe": {
+      "description": "CPU affinity or fallback probe used",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "default_chunks_per_worker": {
+      "description": "chunk target used by automatic pool sizing",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "default_source_bytes_per_worker": {
+      "description": "source-byte target for automatic spawn sizing; null for other start methods",
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "estimated_pool_memory_mb": {
+      "description": "estimated memory for the allowed worker count",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "inherited_analysis_workers": {
+      "description": "valid inherited worker ceiling or null",
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "log_max_bytes": {
+      "description": "byte limit per current and backup lane log; zero is unlimited",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "memory_budget_mb": {
+      "description": "inherited memory sizing hint or null",
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "memory_is_hard_limit": {
+      "description": "false: memory policy sizes workers without an OS allocation limit",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "pool_worker_limit": {
+      "description": "per-pool ceiling after CPU, memory and inherited limits",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "requested_analysis_workers": {
+      "description": "configured per-pool ceiling; zero selects the default",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "serial_fallback": {
+      "description": "busy slots allow serial work without waiting",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "shared_pool_limit": {
+      "description": "shared numbered pool slot ceiling",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "test_retention_count": {
+      "description": "default test evidence count limit; zero disables it",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "test_retention_days": {
+      "description": "default test evidence age limit; zero disables it",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "worker_memory_estimate_mb": {
+      "description": "memory estimate per analysis worker",
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv0.6.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description adds behavior beyond those: it needs no run, probes each runner once, runs no lane, and reports any problem via isError true. It also clarifies the no-parent-config fallback behavior. Nothing contradicts 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then moves through usage, behavior, and parameter details in a logical order. Every sentence adds unique information and there is no filler, making it dense but efficient.

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?

For a single-parameter, non-destructive check tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, what behavior to expect, error signaling, and parameter semantics. The output schema can handle the return structure, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents the repo parameter and its default, and the description adds further meaning: repo can be any directory under the checkout, and absence of a crapkit.toml above it produces a pointer rather than inheriting a parent's config. This goes beyond the schema's description and meaningfully clarifies the parameter's semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Checks') and a specific resource ('crapkit.toml') and enumerates the concrete failure categories it catches: typo keys, empty scopes, missing lane cwds, and runners that fail to start. It also names the sibling list_runs and distinguishes when that tool is the right choice, so an agent can tell this tool apart from its siblings.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: run this tool first when any tool answers strangely or when ranking misses a file, and use list_runs instead when only history is in question. It also clarifies that repo can be any directory under the checkout and that a directory with no crapkit.toml above it yields a pointer rather than falling back to a parent's config, which removes ambiguity about invocation context.

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

Deploy Server