Skip to main content
Glama
KyaniteLabs

checkyourself

by KyaniteLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Emit Coverage Skeleton

coverage_emit
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a 20-point coverage skeleton for evidence-based readiness scoring. Fill in manual evidence, missing-evidence notes, and not-applicable reasons to prepare for coverage-backed scoring.

Instructions

Return the 20-surface CheckYourself coverage skeleton that an agent fills with manual evidence, missing-evidence notes, and not-applicable reasons before coverage-backed scoring. In MCP mode this only returns the skeleton object; it does not create a file. Requires no authentication. It reads local inputs only, does not make network calls, does not modify local files, and has no external rate limits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNoOptional project label or path to include in the returned coverage skeleton.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / project / description
      Added value: +"Optional project label or path to include in the returned coverage skeleton."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Coverage skeleton using schema checkyourself-coverage/1.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond annotations by stating 'Requires no authentication', 'reads local inputs only', 'does not make network calls', 'does not modify local files', and 'has no external rate limits'. These are concrete behavioral details not captured in the annotations, fully disclosing side effects and operational characteristics.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and the MCP-specific behavior immediately following. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage timing, behavioral side effects, and parameter context. Combined with the annotations and the presence of an output schema (which describes the return format), an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The only parameter 'project' has a schema description that already explains it as 'Optional project label or path to include in the returned coverage skeleton.' The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither adds nor detracts.

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 the tool returns the '20-surface CheckYourself coverage skeleton' for filling with manual evidence, missing-evidence notes, and not-applicable reasons before coverage-backed scoring. It specifies a specific verb, resource, and purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like coverage_check or score without naming them explicitly but contextualizing its role.

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 explicitly says 'before coverage-backed scoring', indicating when to use it. It also clarifies that in MCP mode it returns the skeleton only and does not create a file, which helps an agent understand the read-only context. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough for routing.

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