Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
repo-tutor-mcp

repo-tutor-mcp

by bmdy6
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

verify_course

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads local source and Markdown lessons to verify citations and coverage, without modifying any files.

Instructions

Read local source and Markdown lessons; verify citations and coverage without writes.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "lessons_path": "<lessons_path>"
    },
    "name": "verify_course"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
lessons_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'without writes' adds nothing new. The description does clarify what is read (local source files and Markdown lessons) but says nothing about failure behavior, what verification output is produced, or how coverage is judged.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted wording. It is perhaps too terse for the gaps it leaves, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no explanation of what a verification result looks like (pass/fail, list of broken citations, coverage numbers), the definition is under-specified for a two-required-parameter tool. An agent would have to guess both argument mapping and return shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and both parameters are required, yet the description only hints that 'local source' maps to path and 'Markdown lessons' maps to lessons_path without naming either. No format, directory-vs-file expectation, or relationship between the two paths is given.

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 set: read local source and Markdown lessons, then verify citations and coverage. That is clearly distinguishable from scan_repository or inspect_topology, but the description never names or contrasts those siblings.

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 implied by 'verify citations and coverage' plus the 'without writes' constraint, which signals a read-only checking task. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that both paths must exist), and no mention of any alternative tool.

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