Skip to main content
Glama
CHASE MCP Server

CHASE MCP Server

by chase-cps

verify

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks whether an LTL assume-guarantee contract's assumptions and guarantees can hold together, returning a witness trace when satisfiable or conflicting core terms when unsatisfiable.

Instructions

Can the assumptions and the guarantees hold together (A & G satisfiable, the verify command of logics_tool)? status is that of feasible: sat with a witness trace, which also shows compatibility (A satisfiable) and consistency (A -> G satisfiable); unsat when the guarantees cannot hold when the assumptions do, and then compatible and consistent say whether the assumptions alone cannot hold. With core, an unsat result carries the terms that conflict (in feasible.core). 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": {
      "contract": "<contract>"
    },
    "name": "verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coreNo
backendNoauto
contextNo
timeoutNo
contractYes

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. Changed6 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 / backend / enum
      Previous value: -[
      -  "auto",
      -  "nuxmv",
      -  "nusmv"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "auto",
      +  "nuxmv",
      +  "nusmv",
      +  "nuxmv/ic3",
      +  "nuxmv/bdd",
      +  "nuxmv/bmc",
      +  "nuxmv/portfolio",
      +  "nusmv/bdd",
      +  "nusmv/bmc"
      +]
    • addedInput schema / properties / core
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": false,
      +  "title": "Core",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
  3. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description explains the return semantics in detail: sat with a witness trace, unsat meaning guarantees cannot hold when assumptions do, compatible/consistent flags, and that core=True causes an unsat result to carry conflicting terms in feasible.core. It also explains what context formulas do to the behavior space. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core question is front-loaded, and the content is substantive, but the prose is dense and includes awkward phrasing such as 'status is that of feasible' and the logics_tool parenthetical. It could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 fairly complex verification tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains result interpretation and the context parameter, which are the hardest things to infer. It leaves backend selection and timeout behavior unexplained, but those are reasonably guessable from titles/defaults, and the nested contract schema covers contract fields.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully documents core (unsat core behavior) and context (formulas every behavior satisfies, excluded violating behaviors), and the nested ContractSpec schema describes its own fields. However, backend and timeout are left entirely undocumented, so compensation is only partial.

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 states a specific verification question: whether assumptions and guarantees are jointly satisfiable, with a witness trace on sat. It distinguishes the combined check from the separate compatibility and consistency checks by explaining what each result flag means, though the 'verify command of logics_tool' parenthetical is unnecessary noise.

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 by the question 'Can the assumptions and the guarantees hold together' and by the result interpretation, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or direct routing to/from siblings such as is_satisfiable, is_compatible, or is_consistent. An agent can infer the tool's role but is not told when to prefer it over the individual checks.

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