Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-coding-standards

mcp-coding-standards

by KarateJB
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

search_guidelines

Search coding guidelines by keyword to find specific topics like naming conventions or async/await. Returns relevant snippets with context for quick reference.

Instructions

Search coding guidelines by keyword. Returns relevant snippets with context. Useful for finding specific topics like "lambda expression", "async/await", or "naming conventions".

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_guidelines"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query (e.g., "lambda expression", "async/await", "naming conventions")
languageNoOptional language filter (e.g., "C#", "JavaScript")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states it returns snippets with context, which is non-destructive, but provides no details on rate limits, authorization, or result limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 it is a search tool with no output schema and clear parameter descriptions, the description is sufficiently complete for typical usage, though it lacks details on result format or pagination.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds examples for the query parameter and mentions the optional language filter, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 it searches coding guidelines by keyword and returns relevant snippets with context. It is distinct from siblings 'get_guideline' and 'list_guidelines' by focusing on search functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides useful examples of when to use it (e.g., 'lambda expression') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives beyond the name.

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