Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Assura

Assura

Official
by assura-lang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

assura_explain

Explain an Assura error code to get its name, description, example, and suggested fix, helping you diagnose and resolve contract verification errors.

Instructions

Explain an Assura error code. Returns the error name, description, example, and suggested fix.

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "assura_explain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesAssura error code to explain (e.g. "A03001").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does well on outcomes by listing the returned fields (name, description, example, suggested fix), which implies a read-only lookup, but it says nothing about what happens if the code is unknown or malformed, whether the call is side-effect free, or whether the answer is cached.

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 short sentences, purpose first and return shape second, with no filler or repetition. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it states the purpose and previews the response fields, which the missing output schema would otherwise have to convey. The main gap is the absence of any statement about invalid or unknown code handling.

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 schema already shows the single "code" parameter with a concrete example ("A03001"). The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Explain an Assura error code") and enumerates what the answer contains. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from assura_check or the other assura_* siblings, leaving the agent to infer which of them is the lookup tool.

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?

Use is only implied by the phrase "error code" – an agent can infer that this is for looking up a known code, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and does not name an alternative among the siblings for cases like verifying or diagnosing a code.

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