Skip to main content
Glama
aidesignblueprint

AI Design Blueprint Doctrine

Official

architect.validate

Validate code, workflows, or architecture against AI Design Blueprint principles. Get principle coverage, findings, and actionable recommendations. Enterprise-safe with transient processing.

Instructions

Pro/Teams — evaluate code, a workflow, or an architecture description against the Blueprint doctrine. Returns principle coverage, findings, and example recommendations. ENTERPRISE-SAFE: payloads are processed transiently in memory by the underlying LLM provider (OpenAI API, no-training-on-API-data) and dropped. We never train models on user code, payloads, or architecture diagrams. Pass private_session=true to force the MCP server to bypass all database logging for this call — enforced in code, not just in policy. UK/EU data residency. DPAs available for Teams. Auth: Bearer .

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
implementation_contextYesCode snippet, workflow description, or architecture summary to evaluate against Blueprint principles.
focus_areaNoNarrow the evaluation to a specific principle cluster or slug (e.g. 'delegation-and-scope').
taskNoWhat the agent or workflow is trying to accomplish. Adds evaluation context.
languageNoProgramming language of the code being evaluated (e.g. 'python', 'typescript').
repositoryNoRepository name or path for additional context.
filesNoList of file paths relevant to the implementation context.
goalsNoSpecific safety or quality goals to evaluate against (e.g. 'prevent irreversible actions', 'explicit approvals').
example_limitNoMaximum number of curated examples to include in recommendations.
private_sessionNoSet to true to disable all logging for this validation call.
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing data handling (transient processing, no training, private session option, UK/EU residency, DPAs, auth). However, it does not fully disclose potential side effects like logging (implied by private_session) or state changes.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but includes marketing-like details about enterprise safety and data residency that could be more concisely placed elsewhere. Approps for structure but some fluff.

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?

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks detailed output structure. It only mentions return types vaguely ('principle coverage, findings, and example recommendations'). This is insufficient for an agent to parse the response correctly.

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 schema already documents parameters well. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it repeats implementation_context definition).

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 clearly states it evaluates code, workflows, or architecture descriptions against the Blueprint doctrine, and lists return values. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like lists, searches, handoffs, etc.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but its purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer its use case. It mentions it's for 'Pro/Teams' which might imply a paid tier, but lacks exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/aidesignblueprint/integrations'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server