Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Assura

Assura

Official
by assura-lang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

assura_type_map

Converts a Rust type to its equivalent Assura type, such as Vec to List, so Assura contract checks can use Rust-derived types.

Instructions

Map a Rust type to the equivalent Assura type (e.g. Vec -> List).

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": {
      "rust_type": "<rust_type>"
    },
    "name": "assura_type_map"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rust_typeYesRust type to map to an Assura type (e.g. "Vec<Option<i64>>").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
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 discloses the input/output shape via the example but says nothing about failure behavior (e.g. unsupported or unmappable types), or whether the mapping is pure and deterministic. For a simple one-argument transform this is acceptable but incomplete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a concrete example and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a trivial transform, though it leaves room to add one clause about behavior on unmappable types at no real cost to brevity.

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 uses the example to convey the return value (List<Int>), covering the main gap. What is missing is only edge-case behavior such as errors for unknown types, which is minor for a one-parameter mapping tool.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one required parameter, so the schema already defines everything. The description's example (Vec<i64> -> List<Int>) adds mild value by illustrating the accepted input syntax and the corresponding output, but no additional constraint or format guidance.

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 and resource ('Map a Rust type to the equivalent Assura type') and the worked example (Vec<i64> -> List<Int>) makes the transformation unambiguous. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like assura_infer or assura_check, though it never explicitly names them.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it holds a Rust type and needs the Assura equivalent. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of how this differs from assura_infer, which could look adjacent.

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