Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fluencydrift-mcp

fluencydrift-mcp

by baokhang83
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

explain_record

Retrieve the definition and purpose of an architectural record by its name, clarifying the intended design to help detect code drift.

Instructions

Explain one architectural record by name.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "explain_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe record's name (e.g. a concept's name).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose output format, behavior when the record is not found, or whether the operation is read-only. For a tool named 'explain', a read-only assumption is reasonable but not explicitly stated.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and free of any extraneous words. It states the action, target, and scope efficiently.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is functional but minimal. It does not explain what the explanation contains, the return format, or error handling, leaving some ambiguity about the response.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the 'name' parameter with 100% coverage. The description's 'by name' adds no new semantics beyond reinforcing what the parameter is, so it provides no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Explain' with a clear resource 'one architectural record' and a precise scope 'by name'. It distinguishes itself from siblings: list_architectural_records lists all records and check_drift checks drift, while explain_record focuses on a single record's explanation.

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?

The phrase 'by name' implies it is for explaining a specific record, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus listing or checking drift. No alternatives are mentioned, so the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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