Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CHASE MCP Server

CHASE MCP Server

by chase-cps
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

is_satisfiable

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether an LTL formula is satisfiable; returns a witness trace if satisfiable or an unsat core identifying conflicting conjuncts if not.

Instructions

On formulas: satisfiability. Does some behavior satisfy the LTL formula? sat with a witness trace, or unsat; with core, the conjuncts of the formula that cannot hold together. This is not the satisfaction of a contract by a component, which is is_implementation. 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": {
      "formula": "<formula>",
      "variables": "<variables>"
    },
    "name": "is_satisfiable"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coreNo
backendNoauto
contextNo
formulaYes
timeoutNo
variablesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.2
    • 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"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / variables / 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"
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot: the return modes (sat with witness trace, unsat, or a core of incompatible conjuncts) and the semantics of `context` filtering out violating behaviors. It does not explain backend selection effects or timeout behavior.

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 core purpose and the sibling disambiguation are front-loaded, with the context semantics following. Sentence fragments and hard line breaks make it slightly awkward but nothing is wasted.

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 six-parameter tool with a nested variables map and a nine-value backend enum and no output schema, the description leaves backend/timeout/variables behavior unspecified. It adequately covers the result semantics and the context parameter but not the full invocation surface.

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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate; it explains `core` and `context` meaningfully but leaves `backend`, `timeout`, `variables`, and `formula` syntax entirely undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation only.

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?

States the specific operation (satisfiability of an LTL formula) with a clear question form, and explicitly distinguishes it from the nearest sibling: 'This is not the satisfaction of a contract by a component, which is is_implementation.' An agent can select it without further reading.

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?

Gives a clear when-not and names the alternative (is_implementation), plus explains the `context` use case for formulas every behavior satisfies. It does not cover selection versus other adjacent tools like unsat_core or is_consistent, so it falls short of fully explicit routing.

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