Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
.FAF Context

.FAF Context

by Wolfe-Jam
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

faf_trust

Read-only

Validate a project.faf file's required fields and about.* block with faf-cli, then report its actual trust score.

Instructions

Validate a project.faf's required fields (faf_version, project.name) and about.* block with faf-cli's validator, and report its real score.

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_trust"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: the exact fields validated and that it invokes faf-cli's validator to produce a "real score," which hints at behavior beyond a simple read. It doesn't describe failure modes or what happens when validation fails.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and target come first, and the secondary outcome (score report) closes the sentence efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no params, the description carries the full burden of explaining results. It mentions a score but not the validation report shape (e.g. pass/fail per field), and it doesn't clarify the target file location or how this differs from faf_score, leaving an agent with moderate gaps.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed beyond the implicit project.faf target.

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 ("Validate") and resource ("project.faf's required fields (faf_version, project.name) and about.* block"), and adds that it reports a score. However, it does not distinguish this from close siblings like faf_score or faf_check, which likely also validate or score a project.faf.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus faf_score, faf_check, or faf_doctor. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g. that a project.faf must exist) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the boundary among several overlapping sibling tools.

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