minqual
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| checkA | Check code before finishing. language: python, javascript, typescript, java, csharp, c, cpp, go, rust or php. files: relative path -> complete file content for solution files. tests: relative path -> complete content for a self-contained test runner and cases.tsv. mode: full compiles and runs the supplied tests; static only reports source heuristics. Limits: 20 files, 200 KB total, 15-90s timeouts. Paths must stay inside a temporary workspace. Any build error, failing case, or high-severity finding is returned as JSON. Fix it and call again. Code is compiled and executed locally in a temporary directory with a minimal environment. There is no network or filesystem sandbox; run only trusted code. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of confusing it with another operation. Its purpose is clearly to validate code before finishing.
With a single tool named check, there is no naming convention to violate and consistency is trivially perfect. The name is simple and predictable, though not highly descriptive on its own.
A single all-in-one check tool is thin for a code-validation server, but it may be appropriate because it bundles compilation, test execution, and static analysis behind one operation. The surface is borderline rather than clearly wrong.
The tool covers core validation workflows: compiling, running supplied tests, and reporting static findings across multiple languages. Minor gaps exist around richer diagnostics or remediation, but agents can work around them by fixing issues and calling check again.