Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FTC Toolchain

FTC Toolchain

by Sanjit-K
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Check FTC project hygiene

check_project_hygiene

Audit your FTC robot project pre-competition to detect duplicate Driver Station names, orphaned files, broken documentation links, missing APKs, disabled OpModes, TODOs, and uncommitted changes.

Instructions

Read-only pre-competition audit for duplicate Driver Station names, orphaned generated file pairs, broken subsystem-doc links, incompatible hardware types, stale or missing APKs, disabled OpModes, TODOs, and uncommitted Git changes.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_project_hygiene"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPathNoPath to the FtcRobotController SDK project. Defaults to $FTC_TOOLCHAIN_PROJECT_DIR, then the workspace clone made by create_project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only' and enumerates all checks performed, providing good transparency. However, it does not describe the output format or any potential side effects beyond read-only nature.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads 'Read-only pre-competition audit' and lists all checks compactly without wasted words.

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 the complexity (many checks) and lack of output schema, the description covers a wide range of aspects but could hint at the output format or how results are presented.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the tool description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs a read-only pre-competition audit and lists numerous specific checks (duplicate names, broken links, etc.), making its purpose specific and distinguishable from siblings.

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?

The description implies usage before competition via 'pre-competition audit' and lists specific checks, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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