Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-invariants

agent-invariants

by christian140903-sudo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Compare Agent Traces

agent_invariants_compare_traces

Compare baseline and candidate traces to detect regressions: newly broken rules, new tools, call inflation, or outcome changes.

Instructions

Compare baseline and candidate traces and report newly broken rules, new tools, call inflation, or outcome regression.

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>",
      "baseline": "<baseline>",
      "candidate": "<candidate>"
    },
    "name": "agent_invariants_compare_traces"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baselineYes
contractYes
candidateYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It reports outputs but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or any side effects. For a comparison tool, it likely is read-only, but this is not stated.

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?

Single sentence with clear structure: action and output summary. Could be slightly improved by noting required parameters, but no wasted words.

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?

Given the complexity (3 complex parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools), the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of the contract parameter, trace structure, and report format, making it hard for an agent to use correctly without prior knowledge.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only mentions 'baseline and candidate traces', ignoring the 'contract' parameter entirely. No additional meaning beyond parameter names is provided, leaving the agent to guess the structure and format of these complex nested objects.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the verb 'Compare' and the objects 'baseline and candidate traces', and lists specific report outputs ('newly broken rules, new tools, call inflation, or outcome regression'). Differentiates from sibling tools like validate_contract or check_trace by focusing on comparison.

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?

The description implies when to use (when comparing two traces) but provides no explicit when-not-to or alternatives. No guidance on avoiding this tool in favor of siblings.

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