Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
togaf10_EAP_MCP

togaf10_EAP_MCP

by Waganawa-Megumin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Validate an ArchiMate relationship

validate_archimate_relationship

Validate an ArchiMate relationship between two elements, and receive a clear verdict (ok, questionable, likely-wrong) with reasoning and alternative suggestions.

Instructions

要素間に引いた関係が意味的に妥当かを ok / questionable / likely-wrong で判定し、理由と代替案を返す。仕様の許可表ではなく「その線が何を主張することになるか」で見る。 / Judge whether a relationship between two elements makes sense: ok, questionable, or likely-wrong, always with reasoning and alternatives — judged on what the link asserts, not on a permitted-relationship table.

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": {
      "source": "<source>",
      "target": "<target>",
      "relationship": "<relationship>"
    },
    "name": "validate_archimate_relationship"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNo出力言語 / Output languageboth
sourceYes始点の要素名または ID。例 "業務プロセス" / Source element name or id
targetYes終点の要素名または ID / Target element name or id
relationshipYes関係名。例 "realization" "アクセス" / Relationship name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the verdict categories (ok/questionable/likely-wrong), that reasoning and alternatives are always returned, and the underlying judgment principle. It does not describe the exact response shape, but the core behavioral contract is visible.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the verdict categories and the key methodological caveat. The Japanese/English bilingual repetition doubles length, but it serves the tool's lang parameter and both outputs are equally succinct.

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?

The tool is simple, the schema covers all parameters, and the description explains the output classes, reasoning, alternatives, and decision logic. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the description, though no exact response structure is given.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds a general semantic purpose but no additional per-parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, which fits the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb—validate—and names the exact resource, an ArchiMate relationship, with a three-way verdict plus reasoning and alternatives. It also differentiates the tool from a generic permitted-relationship checker by stating the judgment is based on what the link asserts.

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 clearly frames the tool as a semantic validator for relationships and explicitly says it is not a permitted-relationship table lookup. It does not name sibling alternatives, so an agent must infer when to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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