Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Project Brain

Project Brain

by Perlitten
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Record a rule

record_rule

Record a repository-scoped normative rule in the database to enforce coding standards and architectural guidelines.

Instructions

Record a repository-scoped normative rule in the database.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "record_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
typeNoarchitecture
statusNoactive
rule_idNo
severityNomedium
repo_pathNo
applies_toNo
descriptionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.2

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the safety bar is lower. However, the description adds essentially nothing beyond that: it does not say whether this creates or upserts, what happens to an existing rule with the same name, or what permissions are required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized as a sentence, though its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being tight-but-complete.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It omits the parameter semantics and repository-scoping mechanics an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it documents none of them. Critical fields such as name, type, status, rule_id, severity, applies_to, and repo_path are left entirely to bare titles with no meaning added.

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 states a specific verb (Record) and a precisely scoped resource (repository-scoped normative rule), which distinguishes it from siblings like record_decision, record_task_lesson, and record_task_observation. It is clear but does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. With eleven record_/prepare_/get_ siblings an agent gets no help deciding whether a normative rule belongs here versus record_decision or record_task_lesson.

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