Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
.FAF Context

.FAF Context

by Wolfe-Jam
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

faf_sync

Reconcile project.faf with current package.json and framework dependencies, reporting differences by default or writing updates with apply:true.

Instructions

Reconcile project.faf with what the repo manifests say now (package.json name, description, framework dependencies). Dry-run by default: reports the fields that would change. Pass apply:true to write them into project.faf. Does not touch CLAUDE.md — use faf_claude for CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, .cursorrules and GEMINI.md.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "faf_sync"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoProject path. Sets session context for subsequent calls.
applyNoWrite the detected changes into project.faf (default: dry-run report only)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.3.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / apply
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Write the detected changes into project.faf (default: dry-run report only)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv2.1.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description adds the non-obvious trait that this mutating tool is dry-run by default and only writes when apply:true is passed, plus a hard scope boundary on which files it never modifies. It stops short of covering idempotency or conflict handling, so it adds value without being exhaustive.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the default/write semantics, then the exclusion boundary. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (dry-run by default) appears early.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description still tells the agent what the dry-run returns ('reports the fields that would change'), what gets written, and what is out of scope. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description restates the apply semantics (default dry-run vs. write) consistently with the schema but adds no new syntax or edge-case meaning beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reconcile project.faf') plus the authoritative source ('what the repo manifests say now'), listing the concrete inputs (package.json name, description, framework dependencies). It also distinguishes itself from faf_claude and the other file-targeted siblings, so an agent can pick it without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states the default behavior (dry-run reporting) and the opt-in write path (apply:true), and names the correct alternative for a different file set ('Does not touch CLAUDE.md — use faf_claude for CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, .cursorrules and GEMINI.md'). Both the when and the when-not are spelled out.

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