Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CodeGuard

CodeGuard

by Skhaaall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

check

Detect broken imports, removed exports, and type inconsistencies after code changes by re-indexing the modified file and comparing it with its previous state. Use after every modification.

Instructions

Post-change coherence check — re-indexe le fichier modifie, compare avec l'ancien etat, detecte les exports supprimes, imports casses et types incoherents. A appeler APRES chaque modification.

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathYesChemin du fichier qui vient d'etre modifie (absolu ou relatif)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals core behavior (re-indexing, comparing, detecting removed exports, broken imports, and inconsistent types), but does not disclose potential side effects, output shape, or error behavior.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and immediately follows with concrete behavior and an explicit usage condition. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate for an agent to know when and how to invoke it. It does not describe the return format, but the low complexity and procedural framing make this a minor gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the single required filePath parameter is already described in the schema as the just-modified file. The description adds little beyond that, so the schema carries the semantic weight.

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?

Starts with 'Post-change coherence check' and states specific actions: 're-indexe le fichier modifie, compare avec l'ancien etat, detecte les exports supprimes, imports casses et types incoherents.' This gives a clear verb, resource, and scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like reindex.

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?

Includes an explicit trigger: 'A appeler APRES chaque modification.' This clearly indicates when to use it, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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