Skip to main content
Glama
CHASE MCP Server

CHASE MCP Server

by chase-cps

check_c

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify C functions against written contracts with ESBMC or CBMC, returning valid results or failing-call values; unclaused functions are checked for overflow, division by zero, and pointer safety.

Instructions

Check each function of a C file (text or a file path) against the contract written in its clauses (see parse_c), one call at a time, with ESBMC or CBMC (whichever is installed): valid, or invalid with the values of a failing call. A function with no clause is checked as code alone (safe: no overflow, division by zero, or bad pointer). functions: the ones to check (default: all).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_c"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo
textNo
timeoutNo
functionsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.7.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the external solver dependency, per-function checking, result form (valid or invalid with failing values), and the special no-clause behavior. It does not cover timeout behavior or what happens when no solver is installed, but the added behavioral context is substantial.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and result semantics, and most sentences earn their place. It is slightly dense but not padded; minor details such as parenthetical examples could be tightened.

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 formal-verification tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description usefully explains clause checking, solver selection, result meaning, and no-clause fallback. It still omits timeout semantics and does not clarify path/text mutual exclusivity, so an agent must infer some call details.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains path and text as alternate C-file inputs and says functions defaults to all, but it does not document the timeout parameter at all, leaving one of four parameters unclarified.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: check each function of a C file against contract clauses. It also distinguishes this from parsing by pointing to parse_c for the clause source, so an agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

Usage context is clear: it checks C functions against clauses produced by parse_c, one call at a time, using ESBMC or CBMC. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling verification tools such as verify, nor does it give exclusion conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.