CHASE MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

disjoin

Read-onlyIdempotent

Combine two or more assume-guarantee contracts into a single contract refined by all inputs, merging assumptions with AND and guarantees with OR.

Instructions

Disjunction (least upper bound) of two or more contracts: a contract refined by all of them, (A1 & A2, G1 | G2).

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": {
      "contracts": "<contracts>"
    },
    "name": "disjoin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`contracts`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.0Nov 2, 2026

addedInput schema / $defs / ContractSpec / properties / constants

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "number"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "description": "Named constants: name -> value; the formulas use the names (repair changes them)",
+  "title": "Constants",
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.4.2Oct 29, 2026

changedInput schema / $defs / ContractSpec / properties / inputs / additionalProperties / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "enum": [
-      "bool",
-      "real"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "maxItems": 2,
-    "minItems": 2,
-    "prefixItems": [
-      {
-        "type": "integer"
-      },
-      {
-        "type": "integer"
-      }
-    ],
-    "type": "array"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "bool",
+      "real"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "maxItems": 2,
+    "minItems": 2,
+    "prefixItems": [
+      {
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "integer"
+      }
+    ],
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^(signed |unsigned )?word\\[[1-9][0-9]*\\]$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]

changedInput schema / $defs / ContractSpec / properties / inputs / description

Previous value: -"Input variables: \"bool\", [low, high], or \"real\""New value: +"Input variables: \"bool\", [low, high], \"real\", or \"word[n]\" (\"signed word[n]\")"

changedInput schema / $defs / ContractSpec / properties / outputs / additionalProperties / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "enum": [
-      "bool",
-      "real"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "maxItems": 2,
-    "minItems": 2,
-    "prefixItems": [
-      {
-        "type": "integer"
-      },
-      {
-        "type": "integer"
-      }
-    ],
-    "type": "array"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "bool",
+      "real"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "maxItems": 2,
+    "minItems": 2,
+    "prefixItems": [
+      {
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "integer"
+      }
+    ],
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^(signed |unsigned )?word\\[[1-9][0-9]*\\]$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]

changedInput schema / $defs / ContractSpec / properties / outputs / description

Previous value: -"Output variables: \"bool\", [low, high], or \"real\""New value: +"Output variables: \"bool\", [low, high], \"real\", or \"word[n]\" (\"signed word[n]\")"

First observedv0.3.1Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond that — assumptions are conjoined while guarantees are disjoined — but says nothing about arity limits, failure modes, or what the returned contract looks like.

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 no filler; the formal parenthetical earns its place by pinning down semantics. Slightly jargon-dense for a first-time reader but not padded.

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?

Read-only annotations and rich nested schema cover most needs, and there is no output schema to explain. Still missing is what the result contract is (its inferred name vs the 'name' param) and behavior for fewer than two contracts, which matters for a compositional 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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0%, and the 'name' parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The description does contribute one meaning the schema lacks — that at least two contracts are expected (schema has no minItems) — which partially compensates, though the nested ContractSpec descriptions do heavy lifting.

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 operation (disjunction / least upper bound) on a specific resource (two or more contracts) and anchors it with the formal result '(A1 & A2, G1 | G2)'. It clearly distinguishes itself from the conjoin sibling by semantics, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance; the agent must infer from the algebraic notation that this is the dual of conjoin. Alternatives like conjoin, merge, or compose are never mentioned despite being direct siblings.

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