Skip to main content
Glama
CHASE MCP Server

CHASE MCP Server

by chase-cps

is_receptive

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks whether a state machine accepts every input allowed by its contract assumptions and returns a refusal trace when it does not.

Instructions

Does the state machine accept every input that the assumptions of the contract allow? A machine that refuses an input has no behavior with it, so is_implementation may hold only because it blocks the inputs. receptive, or not_receptive with the trace to the state after which it refuses an input (details: state and input). Uses the initial and safety assumptions; the inputs must be Boolean or integer ranges. The state machine is given as one of: smv, a program in SMV (the input language of nuXmv: MODULE main with VAR/IVAR, INIT, TRANS..., no specification) that declares the variables of the contract; machine, a state machine in JSON {"name", "inputs", "outputs", "states", "initial", "transitions": [{"from", "when", "outputs", "to"}]}: at each step, in its state, the machine takes a transition whose when (a formula over the variables) holds, sets the outputs of that step, and moves to to; or controller, the controller returned by synthesize, with the contract it was synthesized from in synthesized_from (default: the contract); or rtl, a Verilog or SystemVerilog module (see rtl_ports for its ports).

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_receptive"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rtlNo
smvNo
backendNoauto
machineNo
timeoutNo
contractYes
controllerNo
synthesized_fromNo

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. Addedv0.4.2

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds important behavioral details beyond annotations: it specifies the return outcomes (`receptive` or `not_receptive` with a trace), explains what the trace contains, and states which assumptions are used and what input domains are supported.

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 with the core question and result format before detailing accepted state machine formats. The length is justified by the number of input variants, though the second paragraph could be more scannable.

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?

For a complex eight-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics, return format, assumptions, input restrictions, and most state machine formats. The main remaining gap is that optional `backend` and `timeout` behavior are not described.

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 compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for the mutually exclusive `smv`, `machine`, `controller`, and `rtl` inputs and mentions the `synthesized_from` default, but it does not explain `backend` or `timeout`, leaving several parameters under-specified.

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 states a precise check: whether the state machine accepts every input allowed by the contract assumptions. It also distinguishes the result from `is_implementation` by explaining that implementation may hold only because inputs are blocked, which is enough for an agent to differentiate it from sibling verification tools.

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?

It gives clear usage context by explaining the relationship to `is_implementation` and by naming `synthesize` for controllers and `rtl_ports` for RTL ports. It also states that initial and safety assumptions are used and that inputs must be Boolean or integer ranges, though it does not explicitly list when not to use the tool.

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