CHASE MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

parse_spec

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads CHASE logic specification contracts from text or a .ltl file path, enabling you to inspect and work with assume-guarantee specifications.

Instructions

Read the contracts of a specification in the logics language of CHASE (the .ltl files of logics_tool), given as text or as a file path.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "parse_spec"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No
`text`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.4.2Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description contributes format context (CHASE logics language, .ltl files) but says nothing about the ambiguous case where both text and path are present or both are absent, which is the real behavioral risk here.

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 sentence with the core action front-loaded; the parenthetical identifying the file type earns its place. Slight awkwardness from the line break and nested parenthetical, but nothing is wasted.

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 and rich annotations, a compact description is appropriate, and the format specifics are the essential missing context for this tool. The one notable omission is the text-vs-path precedence and the requirement that at least one be supplied.

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 does partially: 'given as text or as a file path' maps cleanly onto the text and path parameters. However, it never states that both are optional with null defaults or that exactly one is expected, leaving the precedence rule undefined.

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 resource and scope: reading the contracts of a specification in CHASE's logics language, with the concrete file convention (.ltl files of logics_tool). It is distinguishable from parse_sva and to_spec by naming the input format. The verb 'Read' is slightly soft for what is a parse/load operation, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus to_spec, parse_sva, or to_sva, even though the sibling list shows several format-conversion/parsing tools where picking the wrong one is likely. No prerequisites or preconditions are stated.

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