Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kanysh Basic

Kanysh Basic

by almukhanomr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

folder_assess

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess a registered source folder with bounded header reads to identify candidate roles, missing inputs, workflows, and file/line parameter proposals for user confirmation.

Instructions

Assess a registered folder with bounded header reads: candidate roles, missing inputs, available workflows and file/line parameter proposals. Proposals MUST be confirmed with the user before any plan/calculation. No scientific calculation or automatic PVT/contact choice. Includes export instructions resource.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "folder_assess"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYesTool arguments object (all fields documented; Z is positive upward).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed world), yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: inspection is limited to bounded header reads, no scientific computation or automatic decisions are performed, and an export instructions resource is bundled. Only the practical meaning of 'bounded' (what gets truncated) is left unstated.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Outputs are front-loaded in the first sentence, the confirmation requirement follows immediately, and the exclusion plus bundled resource close it out with no filler. The telegraphic style ('file/line parameter proposals') costs a little clarity but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description does its job by naming what comes back (roles, missing inputs, workflows, proposals) and what does not (calculations, automatic PVT decisions). Adequate for a nested single-parameter read tool; only the truncation/limit behavior under max_files/max_depth is left to the schema.

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% and the single nested request object documents path, max_depth, max_files, and source_id, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only gestures at bounding via 'bounded header reads' and 'file/line parameter proposals' without adding anything the schema doesn't already say.

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 (assess) and resource (registered folder) and enumerates the four concrete outputs: candidate roles, missing inputs, available workflows, and file/line parameter proposals. The 'No scientific calculation' clause implicitly separates it from calculation_plan/volumes_calculate, but it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear usage constraint — proposals must be confirmed with the user before any plan/calculation — and an explicit exclusion ('no automatic PVT/contact choice', 'no scientific calculation'), which is real when/when-not guidance. What's missing is routing versus the many source_* siblings (source_scan, source_inspect) that an agent could easily confuse this with.

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