Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
astrograph

astrograph

by Thaylo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

suppress

Idempotent

Suppress duplicate code warnings by WL hash after confirming duplication is intentional, such as API symmetry or test isolation, to prevent write blocking on structurally identical code.

Instructions

Suppress a duplicate by WL hash (from analyze output). Only suppress AFTER confirming the duplication is intentional (e.g. API symmetry, test isolation). Refactoring should be the default action for duplicates.

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": {
      "wl_hash": "<wl_hash>"
    },
    "name": "suppress"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wl_hashYesWL hash from analyze output

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.6

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds workflow context (from analyze output) and a usage caution, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects or persistence. This is adequate given the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage criteria, and workflow context. It is self-contained and sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100% and the description repeats the schema's 'WL hash from analyze output' without adding further meaning or examples. Baseline 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 action (suppress) and the target (a duplicate identified by WL hash from analyze output). It distinguishes from siblings like unsuppress and analyze by focusing on the suppression step.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Only suppress AFTER confirming the duplication is intentional') and when not to ('Refactoring should be the default action'), providing clear decision 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