Skip to main content
Glama

programmingparadigm

Apply different programming paradigms to solve coding problems, including imperative, functional, object-oriented, and reactive approaches, by structuring code with appropriate methodologies.

Instructions

A tool for applying different programming paradigms to solve problems. Supports various programming paradigms including:

  • Imperative Programming

  • Procedural Programming

  • Object-Oriented Programming

  • Functional Programming

  • Declarative Programming

  • Logic Programming

  • Event-Driven Programming

  • Aspect-Oriented Programming

  • Concurrent Programming

  • Reactive Programming

Each paradigm provides a different approach to structuring and executing code.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paradigmNameYes
problemYes
approachNo
benefitsNo
limitationsNo
codeExampleNo
languagesNo

Implementation Reference

  • The ProgrammingParadigmServer class contains the logic to validate, format, and process the "programmingparadigm" tool request. The primary handler method is processParadigm.
    export class ProgrammingParadigmServer {
      private validateParadigmData(input: unknown): ProgrammingParadigmData {
        const data = input as Record<string, unknown>;
    
        if (!data.paradigmName || typeof data.paradigmName !== 'string') {
          throw new Error('Invalid paradigmName: must be a string');
        }
        if (!data.problem || typeof data.problem !== 'string') {
          throw new Error('Invalid problem: must be a string');
        }
    
        return {
          paradigmName: data.paradigmName as string,
          problem: data.problem as string,
          approach: Array.isArray(data.approach) ? data.approach.map(String) : [],
          benefits: Array.isArray(data.benefits) ? data.benefits.map(String) : [],
          limitations: Array.isArray(data.limitations) ? data.limitations.map(String) : [],
          codeExample: typeof data.codeExample === 'string' ? data.codeExample as string : undefined,
          languages: Array.isArray(data.languages) ? data.languages.map(String) : undefined
        };
      }
    
      private formatParadigmOutput(data: ProgrammingParadigmData): string {
        const { paradigmName, problem, approach, benefits, limitations, codeExample, languages } = data;
        
        let output = `\n${chalk.bold.blue('Programming Paradigm:')} ${chalk.bold(paradigmName)}\n`;
        output += `${chalk.bold.green('Problem:')} ${problem}\n`;
        
        if (approach.length > 0) {
          output += `\n${chalk.bold.yellow('Approach:')}\n`;
          approach.forEach((step, index) => {
            output += `${chalk.bold(`${index + 1}.`)} ${step}\n`;
          });
        }
        
        if (benefits.length > 0) {
          output += `\n${chalk.bold.magenta('Benefits:')}\n`;
          benefits.forEach((benefit) => {
            output += `${chalk.bold(`•`)} ${benefit}\n`;
          });
        }
        
        if (limitations.length > 0) {
          output += `\n${chalk.bold.red('Limitations:')}\n`;
          limitations.forEach((limitation) => {
            output += `${chalk.bold(`•`)} ${limitation}\n`;
          });
        }
        
        if (languages && languages.length > 0) {
          output += `\n${chalk.bold.cyan('Applicable Languages:')} ${languages.join(', ')}\n`;
        }
        
        if (codeExample) {
          output += `\n${chalk.bold.green('Code Example:')}\n${codeExample}\n`;
        }
        
        return output;
      }
    
      public processParadigm(input: unknown): { content: Array<{ type: string; text: string }>; isError?: boolean } {
        try {
          const validatedInput = this.validateParadigmData(input);
          const formattedOutput = this.formatParadigmOutput(validatedInput);
          console.error(formattedOutput);
    
          return {
            content: [{
              type: "text",
              text: JSON.stringify({
                paradigmName: validatedInput.paradigmName,
                status: 'success',
                hasApproach: validatedInput.approach.length > 0,
                hasCodeExample: !!validatedInput.codeExample
              }, null, 2)
            }]
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [{
              type: "text",
              text: JSON.stringify({
                error: error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error),
                status: 'failed'
              }, null, 2)
            }],
            isError: true
          };
        }
      }
    }
  • src/index.ts:1070-1073 (registration)
    The tool "programmingparadigm" is registered and handled within the main server loop in src/index.ts, delegating to the processParadigm method.
    case "programmingparadigm": {
        const result = paradigmServer.processParadigm(
            request.params.arguments
        );
  • The ProgrammingParadigmData interface defines the structure of the input required by the "programmingparadigm" tool.
    export interface ProgrammingParadigmData {
        paradigmName: string;
        problem: string;
        approach: string[];
        benefits: string[];
Behavior2/5

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

With zero annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to state what the tool returns (code, analysis, recommendation?), whether it maintains state, or what side effects occur. The phrase 'applying' implies transformation but gives no specifics on the output format.

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 bulleted list of 10 paradigms consumes space but largely duplicates the enum constraint in the schema (though it provides human-readable mappings). The final sentence ('Each paradigm provides a different approach...') is generic filler that earns no value. Not overly verbose but contains redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the relationship between the required 'problem' and 'paradigmName' versus optional arrays (benefits, limitations), leaving the agent uncertain how to construct valid invocations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 7 parameters, the description must compensate significantly but only maps the paradigmName enum values to readable titles. It fails to explain whether 'codeExample' is an input or output, what the 'approach' array should contain, or what 'languages' refers to (supported languages for the paradigm or target languages for generation).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool is for 'applying different programming paradigms to solve problems,' which identifies the domain but uses the vague verb 'applying' without clarifying whether it generates code, explains concepts, analyzes solutions, or recommends paradigms. It does not distinguish from siblings like designpattern or debuggingapproach.

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 provided on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as designpattern or debuggingapproach. No prerequisites stated for the 'problem' parameter (e.g., whether it expects pseudocode, natural language, or code snippets), nor explanation of how to use the optional parameters (approach, benefits, limitations).

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/chirag127/Clear-Thought-MCP-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server