Skip to main content
Glama
OrygnsCode

opa-mcp-server

by OrygnsCode
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Partially evaluate a Rego query

rego_compile_query

Run partial evaluation on a Rego query to substitute known values and return the residual policy, enabling offline policy slicing and pre-computed decision sets.

Instructions

Run partial evaluation on a query -- substitute known values and return the residual policy. Defaults unknowns to ["input"] (treat input as unknown), so the residual encodes "given input X, this is what would have to be true." Use this for offline policy slicing or pre-computing decision sets.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputNoInline input document.
pathsNoPolicy / data file or directory paths. Each must be inside an allowed root.
queryYesRego query to evaluate, e.g. "data.example.allow".
sourceNoInline Rego policy source. Optional: without `source` or `paths` the query runs on its own, which is enough to try a built-in or an expression.
partialNoRun partial evaluation rather than full evaluation.
unknownsNoRefs to treat as unknown during partial evaluation.
inputPathNoPath to a JSON input file. Mutually exclusive with `input`.
v0CompatibleNoRead the policy as Rego v0 (`--v0-compatible`), the syntax OPA used before 1.0: rules without `if`, partial sets as `deny[msg] { ... }`. Needed for a policy that has not been migrated, which OPA 1.x otherwise refuses to load. Where the tool also takes a query, the query is read as v0 too, with the future keywords imported so `in`, `every` and `some x in` still work in it.
strictBuiltinErrorsNoTreat builtin errors as fatal instead of returning undefined.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / v0Compatible / description
      Previous value: -"Read the policy as Rego v0 (`--v0-compatible`), the syntax OPA used before 1.0: rules without `if`, partial sets as `deny[msg] { ... }`. Needed for a policy that has not been migrated, which OPA 1.x otherwise refuses to load."New value: +"Read the policy as Rego v0 (`--v0-compatible`), the syntax OPA used before 1.0: rules without `if`, partial sets as `deny[msg] { ... }`. Needed for a policy that has not been migrated, which OPA 1.x otherwise refuses to load. Where the tool also takes a query, the query is read as v0 too, with the future keywords imported so `in`, `every` and `some x in` still work in it."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.7.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / source / description
      Previous value: -"Inline Rego policy source. Mutually exclusive with `paths`."New value: +"Inline Rego policy source. Optional: without `source` or `paths` the query runs on its own, which is enough to try a built-in or an expression."
    • addedInput schema / properties / v0Compatible
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Read the policy as Rego v0 (`--v0-compatible`), the syntax OPA used before 1.0: rules without `if`, partial sets as `deny[msg] { ... }`. Needed for a policy that has not been migrated, which OPA 1.x otherwise refuses to load.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. Addedv0.1.13
  4. Removedv0.1.5
  5. Addedv0.1.2
  6. Removedv0.1.1
  7. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the default of `unknowns` (`["input"]`) and the meaning of the residual output. It does not address the surprising non-read-only annotation for what reads as a pure computation, but it adds genuine behavioral context.

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 core operation and followed immediately by the key default and the intended use case. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

With 9 params, 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the critical default, and the use case well. Return values are described only at a high level ('residual policy'), which is acceptable given the absence of an output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value the schema does not: the default value and interpretation of `unknowns` and what the residual encodes, which is the single most important parameter behavior for this tool.

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 names a precise operation ('Run partial evaluation on a query'), explains the mechanic (substitute known values, return the residual policy), and contrasts implicitly with plain evaluation via the `partial` semantics. It does not explicitly name a sibling (e.g. rego_eval or opa_compile_query), so the agent must infer differentiation.

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 concrete use cases -- 'offline policy slicing or pre-computing decision sets' -- which is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming an alternative evaluation tool, so it is not 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