Skip to main content
Glama
TranQui004

signalint

by TranQui004
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_loop_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve diagnostic signatures currently flagged as looping to identify oscillating issues. Read-only status helps pinpoint repeated appearance and disappearance, then run fresh diagnostics.

Instructions

Returns all diagnostic issue signatures currently flagged as looping (repeatedly appearing and disappearing) in this server session. Read-only; no files are written or modified. Loop history is accumulated across all check_project and check_files calls in this process lifetime, and is restored from .signalint/session.jsonl on startup. Takes no parameters. Use this to identify which diagnostics an agent is oscillating on; use check_project or check_files to run fresh diagnostics.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
loopingYes
signaturesYes
fileChurningYes
fileRuleChurnsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • addedOutput schema / properties / fileChurning
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / fileRuleChurns
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "checkCount": {
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "file": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "hint": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "rule": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "file",
+      "rule",
+      "checkCount",
+      "hint"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "looping",
-  "signatures"
-]New value: +[
+  "looping",
+  "signatures",
+  "fileChurning",
+  "fileRuleChurns"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.7
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "looping": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "signatures": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "hint": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "occurrences": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "signature": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "signature",
+          "occurrences",
+          "hint"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "looping",
+    "signatures"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observedv0.3.3

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Although annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds state-lifecycle context: loop history accumulates across all check_project and check_files calls and is restored from .signalint/session.jsonl on startup. It also confirms 'no files are written or modified,' which clarifies what the read-only hint actually guarantees.

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 tight and efficient: it opens with the return value and risk guarantee, then gives state lifecycle, parameter count, and usage routing. Every sentence adds useful signal and no filler is present.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters, has an output schema, and conveys read-only behavior through annotations, the description is complete. It also clarifies how data is aggregated across sibling calls, how it is restored from session storage, and when to choose alternative tools.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly says 'Takes no parameters' and the schema confirms an empty object with no additional properties. There is nothing further needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns all diagnostic issue signatures currently flagged as looping' and defines looping as repeatedly appearing and disappearing. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like check_project and check_files by positioning it as the accumulated-history view rather than a fresh diagnostic runner.

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 tells agents when to use it: 'identify which diagnostics an agent is oscillating on.' It also names the alternatives for fresh diagnostics: 'use check_project or check_files to run fresh diagnostics.' This is clear, direct usage 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