Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-invariants

agent-invariants

by christian140903-sudo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Summarize Agent Trace

agent_invariants_summarize_trace

Summarize an agent trace by counting tool calls, approvals, failures, completion claims, and observed outcomes to verify deterministic behavior.

Instructions

Return deterministic counts for tools, approvals, failures, completion claims, and observed outcomes.

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": {
      "events": "<events>"
    },
    "name": "agent_invariants_summarize_trace"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'deterministic' but omits side effects (likely read-only), required permissions, or limitations. Minimal transparency.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. However, it lacks critical information needed for proper use, making it under-specified rather than efficient.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The complex input schema (over 20 fields with nested objects) is not explained, nor is the output format. No output schema, so the description should cover return structure but does not.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'events' parameter or its structure. No hint about the expected array of event objects with specific fields.

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 it returns counts for tools, approvals, failures, completion claims, and observed outcomes, which clarifies the tool's aggregating function. However, the verb 'summarize' is missing from the description, and 'deterministic counts' is slightly vague. It distinguishes from siblings like validate_contract or check_trace.

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 tool versus alternatives like agent_invariants_check_trace or agent_invariants_compare_traces. The description does not mention context or prerequisites.

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