Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CHASE MCP Server

CHASE MCP Server

by chase-cps
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

is_well_separated

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks whether a GR(1) contract is well-separated by testing if the component can force the environment to violate assumptions; returns a counterexample controller or minimal core when not separated.

Instructions

GR(1) synthesis (slugs): well-separation. Can the component win by forcing the environment to violate its assumptions? separated when it cannot; not_separated with the controller that forces the violation, which means the assumptions are too weak or depend on the outputs; with core, a minimal set of assumptions that causes it. The component must keep its initial and safety guarantees while it forces the violation (with with_guarantees false, the guarantees are left out). Only violations forced from every initial state are detected.

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_well_separated"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coreNo
timeoutNo
contractYes
with_guaranteesNo

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 / with_guarantees / default
      Previous value: -falseNew value: +true
  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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses a key limitation ('Only violations forced from every initial state are detected') and a non-obvious invariant (the component must keep its initial and safety guarantees while forcing the violation). It does not describe timeout behavior or computational cost, which keeps it from a 5.

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 question and then moves to outcome semantics, with no filler sentences. The semicolon-chained, run-on phrasing ('separated when it cannot; not_separated with the controller that...') makes it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does the necessary work of explaining the three result shapes and the caveat about initial states. Remaining gaps are modest: timeout units/effect and the form of the returned controller are left unspecified.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it explains two of four: 'core' yields a minimal set of assumptions, and 'with_guarantees false' leaves the guarantees out. The 'timeout' and 'contract' parameters receive no explanation in the description (the nested ContractSpec does have its own field descriptions). Partial compensation justifies a 3.

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 names the specific technique (GR(1) synthesis via slugs, well-separation) and frames the operation as a concrete question: can the component win by forcing the environment to violate its assumptions? It also enumerates the possible answers (separated, not_separated, not_separated with core), which tells an agent what kind of verdict to expect. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as is_realizable or is_consistent, so it stops short of a 5.

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 rather than stated: the phrase 'the assumptions are too weak or depend on the outputs' hints at a diagnostic use case, but there is no explicit 'use this when... / prefer X instead' guidance and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a well-formed ContractSpec). Against a sibling set full of similar verdict tools (is_realizable, is_consistent, is_compatible), the agent must infer which to reach for.

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