Skip to main content
Glama
arian-gogani

Nobulex MCP Compliance Server

set_rules

Define granular permission rules using permit/forbid/require syntax to control actions within the Nobulex MCP Compliance Server.

Instructions

Set covenant rules using permit/forbid/require syntax. Each rule is a string like 'forbid delete_user' or 'permit read_data safe to read'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rulesYesArray of rule strings, e.g. ['forbid delete_user', 'permit read_data']

Implementation Reference

  • The MCP tool 'set_rules' implementation, which parses rules and stores them in the local 'rules' variable.
    server.tool(
      "set_rules",
      "Set covenant rules using permit/forbid/require syntax. Each rule is a string like 'forbid delete_user' or 'permit read_data safe to read'.",
      {
        rules: z.array(z.string()).describe(
          "Array of rule strings, e.g. ['forbid delete_user', 'permit read_data']"
        ),
      },
      async ({ rules: ruleStrings }) => {
        try {
          rules = ruleStrings.map(parseRule);
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text" as const,
                text: JSON.stringify({ ok: true, count: rules.length, rules }, null, 2),
              },
            ],
          };
        } catch (err) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text" as const,
                text: JSON.stringify({ ok: false, error: (err as Error).message }),
              },
            ],
            isError: true,
          };
        }
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the syntax but fails to explain critical behaviors: whether this is a destructive overwrite or additive update, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies system state.

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 highly concise with two sentences that directly explain the tool's function and syntax. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that sets rules. It omits essential context: expected outcomes, error conditions, side effects, and how it interacts with sibling tools. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 the 'rules' parameter as an array of strings. The description adds minimal value by providing example syntax ('forbid delete_user'), but does not elaborate on semantic rules, validation, or error handling beyond what the schema implies.

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 the action ('Set covenant rules') and specifies the syntax format ('permit/forbid/require syntax'), making the purpose specific and actionable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_action' or 'get_audit_log' by focusing on rule configuration rather than verification or logging.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_action' for verifying rules or 'verify_log' for audit purposes. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether rules are applied immediately or require validation, leaving usage unclear.

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/arian-gogani/nobulex-mcp'

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