Skip to main content
Glama
architect-34

triage-mcp

by architect-34

classify_component

Predicts an issue's component or area via logistic regression and embedding-kNN. Reports both predictions, neighbour evidence, and measured_quality scores for reliability.

Instructions

Predict which component/area an issue belongs to, by two methods.

Reports the logistic-regression prediction and the embedding-kNN vote separately, along with the neighbour issues behind the vote, so you can see whether the methods agree and what evidence supports them. measured_quality carries the scores from the evaluation run that produced this classifier -- quote those rather than assuming the prediction is reliable.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
knnYes
caveatYes
logregYes
exemplarsYesThe kNN neighbours that produced the vote -- the evidence behind it
known_classesYes
methods_agreeYes
measured_qualityYesScores from the eval run that produced this classifier, not self-reported
cited_issue_numbersYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses that two model outputs are returned separately, that neighbour issues are included as evidence, and that measured_quality comes from an evaluation run and should be quoted instead of assuming reliability. It does not mention side effects, but a prediction call is plausibly read-only.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence contributes: the first sentence states the task, the second explains the output and the reliability caveat. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a single-parameter classifier with an output schema, the description covers the main operational context: what is predicted, how the two methods are reported, and how to interpret measured_quality. It falls just short of full completeness by not addressing when to choose this over sibling tools or input text constraints.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to the single 'text' parameter. It implies the text is an issue and that the result is a component/area, but it does not specify input format, length, or whether the text should be title, body, or both.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Predict which component/area an issue belongs to'. It then clarifies the method (two methods, predictions reported separately), which makes it easy to distinguish from sibling search/triage tools.

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: call this when you need a component/area prediction with supporting evidence. However, there is no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance, and no exclusions are given relative to sibling tools like triage or search_similar_issues.

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