Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CHASE MCP Server

CHASE MCP Server

by chase-cps
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

is_consistent

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verifies whether an LTL assume-guarantee contract is satisfiable, returning a witness trace or the contradictory guarantees.

Instructions

Consistency: is there a behavior allowed by the contract (A -> G satisfiable)? sat with a witness trace, or unsat when the guarantees contradict each other; with core, the guarantees that contradict each other. context: formulas that every behavior satisfies (e.g. an axiom of an encoding, a physical law); the behaviors that violate them are left out.

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": {
      "contract": "<contract>"
    },
    "name": "is_consistent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coreNo
backendNoauto
contextNo
timeoutNo
contractYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.0
    • 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"
+}
  2. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.4.2
    • 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]\")"
    • changedInput schema / properties / backend / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "auto",
-  "nuxmv",
-  "nusmv"
-]New value: +[
+  "auto",
+  "nuxmv",
+  "nusmv",
+  "nuxmv/ic3",
+  "nuxmv/bdd",
+  "nuxmv/bmc",
+  "nuxmv/portfolio",
+  "nusmv/bdd",
+  "nusmv/bmc"
+]
  3. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it explains the sat/unsat outcomes, witness traces, core behavior, and how context formulas restrict the behavior space. It does not discuss backend or timeout effects, but the core result semantics are well disclosed.

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 dense but front-loaded: it first defines consistency and the sat/unsat/core outcomes, then explains context. It avoids filler, though the first sentence is long and could be split for readability.

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 appropriately explains the return outcomes (sat with witness, unsat, core). The nested ContractSpec schema documents contract fields, and annotations cover safety. Missing backend/timeout semantics are minor gaps for an otherwise complete definition.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains core and context well, but leaves backend and timeout undocumented, and only implicitly frames the required contract parameter. The most semantically complex optional parameters are covered, but coverage is incomplete.

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?

The description states a specific operation: checking whether a contract's guarantees are satisfiable under its assumptions, returning sat/unsat and optionally a core. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as is_satisfiable or is_compatible.

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 the consistency-checking framing and the explanation of sat/unsat/core, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like is_satisfiable, is_compatible, or is_realizable. The context parameter's role is explained, which helps, but alternative selection remains unaddressed.

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