Skip to main content
Glama
Tommkruix

archprint

by Tommkruix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Scan architecture rules

archprint_scan
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan a TypeScript repo to list the architecture rules it already follows, showing evidence, adoption, conforming vs. breaking files, and confidence. Read-only.

Instructions

List the architecture rules this TypeScript repo already follows, with the evidence: each rule stated in plain words, whether it is AUTO (clears the confidence gate) or SUGGEST (short of it), its adoption ("enforce": archprint init or generate writes a rule for it, which archprint wire connects to the linter, and public-API rules need dependency-cruiser; "review": held for a human to review, not enforced by default; "report-only": the code follows it but archprint writes no rule for it), how many files conform vs. break it, the files that break it, and the confidence. Read-only. path defaults to "." and a monorepo root scans every app.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deepNoresolve imports through barrels and aliases (slower, more accurate)
pathNoapp or monorepo-root directory on this machine (default "."), not a URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"app or monorepo-root directory (default \".\")"New value: +"app or monorepo-root directory on this machine (default \".\"), not a URL"
  2. First observedv0.8.3

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial semantics: the AUTO vs SUGGEST confidence gate and the three adoption levels (enforce/review/report-only) with their downstream implications. It stops short of describing cost or output volume beyond the `deep` hint.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the dense parenthetical definitions of AUTO/SUGGEST and the adoption levels all carry necessary meaning. It is long and heavily nested with quotes and parentheses, which slightly hurts scanability but does not waste words.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must enumerate return values, and it does: each rule in plain words, AUTO/SUGGEST status, adoption category, conform-vs-break counts, breaking files, and confidence. An agent has everything needed to interpret results.

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 schema already documents both parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that a monorepo-root `path` scans every app, which the schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (architecture rules a TypeScript repo follows) plus the evidence returned. It is clearly a read/scan operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling archprint_check or archprint_explain, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

The description notes that `path` defaults to '.' and that a monorepo root scans every app, which is useful invocation context. However, it never states when to use this scan versus archprint_check, archprint_explain, or archprint_recommend, so tool selection guidance is largely absent.

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