Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

find_directive_by_intent

Read-onlyIdempotent

Match a user's natural language request to the most relevant directive. Use this tool when the user describes what they want and you need to identify which directive applies.

Instructions

Match a natural-language user request to the most relevant directive(s). Use when the user describes what they want and you need to find which directive handles it.

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": {
      "user_request": "<user_request>"
    },
    "name": "find_directive_by_intent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_requestYesUser's natural language request describing behavior to change
thresholdNoConfidence threshold0.7

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds that the tool returns the 'most relevant directive(s)', implying ranking, but does not detail the matching mechanism or output format.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and usage, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and annotation richness, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks explanation of return structure (e.g., list of directives with confidence), which could be helpful.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the tool's purpose without elaborating on parameters like threshold's role in relevance.

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 tool matches a natural-language user request to relevant directives, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_directives_by_intent_keyword' by focusing on intent matching rather than keyword matching.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when the user describes what they want and you need to find which directive handles it. Does not mention explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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