Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aidemd-mcp/server

aidemd-mcp/server

by aidemd-mcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

aide_validate

Validates .aide spec files across a project or subdirectory, flagging orphaned specs, missing intent specs, naming conflicts, broken links, and invalid frontmatter or alignment.

Instructions

Health check for .aide spec files in the project. Detects orphaned specs (a spec whose folder, subfolders included, holds no code — only AIDE files, Markdown and dot-files; the project root intent spec in .aide/ is never orphaned, and a plan's presence never decides it), plans with no intent spec beside them (plan-without-spec — write the folder's spec, never delete the plan), missing specs (orchestrators with 3+ helper imports but no .aide), naming conflicts (.aide + intent.aide in same folder), broken links, orphaned research (research.aide without intent spec), missing descriptions (specs with no description field in frontmatter), files whose frontmatter cannot be parsed, and intent specs whose alignment is missing (missing-alignment) or not one of unreviewed, aligned, misaligned (invalid-alignment).

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": "aide_validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoSubdirectory to validate (defaults to entire project)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.15

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful detection semantics (root intent spec never orphaned, plan presence never decides orphaning, valid alignment enums). However, it never states whether validation is purely read-only or can mutate files, nor what the response looks like, leaving the most important behavioral question unanswered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the remainder is one long run-on sentence with deeply nested parentheticals that are hard to parse. The enumerated checks earn their place, but the structure could be far clearer as a list.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover return shape and mutation behavior; it covers the check catalog but not the result structure or whether findings are returned as codes/severities. Adequate to know what it looks for, incomplete for knowing how to consume the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional `path` parameter is fully documented in the schema ("Subdirectory to validate (defaults to entire project)"). The description adds nothing about scoping or path semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ("Health check for .aide spec files") and enumerates the exact defect classes it detects, so an agent knows precisely what the tool does. It never names a sibling (e.g., aide_inspect, aide_cleanup) to differentiate itself, which is the only thing separating it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by "health check" and by the remediation aside for plan-without-spec ("write the folder's spec, never delete the plan"), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool routing. The agent must infer that this is the pre-flight/diagnostic step before aide_fix-style work.

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