Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CHASE MCP Server

CHASE MCP Server

by chase-cps
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

to_spec

Read-onlyIdempotent

Write assume-guarantee contracts as CHASE logics specifications that logics_tool and other CHASE MCP tools read, enabling contract checking and counterexample-driven fixes.

Instructions

Write contracts as a specification in the logics language of CHASE, which logics_tool and the other CHASE tools read.

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": {
      "contracts": "<contracts>"
    },
    "name": "to_spec"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNospec
contractsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds that the result is consumable by downstream CHASE tools, but the word 'write' is ambiguous against readOnlyHint and it says nothing about validation failures or what happens with malformed formulas.

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 front-loaded sentence that puts the action and output first and the rationale second. Nothing redundant, though it is arguably too short for the complexity of the payload.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the annotations cover side effects. However, for a tool that serializes a nested contract structure into a specific specification language, the description gives no orientation on what that language or structure requires, leaving an agent to reverse-engineer it from the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description mentions no parameters at all: neither the top-level 'name' nor the structure of 'contracts' (inputs/outputs/constants/guarantees/assumptions). With the top-level parameter lacking description text, the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb and artifact ('Write contracts as a specification in the logics language of CHASE') plus the reason for the output ('which logics_tool and the other CHASE tools read'). It distinguishes the tool as a producer of spec text, but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from the sibling parse_spec that runs the other direction.

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 only implied: the clause about other CHASE tools reading the output hints that this is a front-end/conversion step, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no naming of the alternative (parse_spec) or prerequisite ordering.

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