Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ASTRA

ASTRA

by christophejlegros-lgtm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

fcs_lint

Read-onlyIdempotent

Screens text, proposed aggregations, and constitutive inferences against five FCS negative-heuristic prohibitions before any user-facing claim is emitted.

Instructions

Screen a string, or a proposed aggregation, or a proposed constitutive inference, against the five prohibitions of the series' negative heuristic. Use before emitting any user-facing claim that touches the FCS layer.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "fcs_lint"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNoString to screen against prohibitions 1–5.
aggregateNoCriteria a caller proposes to combine into one number — checked against prohibition 4.
constitutiveInferenceNoA proposed "ablation → constitutive role" inference — checked against prohibition 5.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the check is a lint/screen against five named prohibitions, which is real context, but says nothing about what a failure looks like, whether violations are returned or errors raised, or how strictly the check is applied.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the usage trigger trailing. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the screen returns — pass/fail, a violation list, a severity — and it does not. The 'or' wording partially resolves the ambiguity of three all-optional parameters, but for a validation tool whose entire value is its verdict, the return contract is a real gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and their semantics (prohibition 4 for aggregate, prohibition 5 for constitutiveInference). The description's 'or' phrasing usefully signals that these are alternative single-purpose inputs rather than a combined filter set, but adds no syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Screen') and three concrete resources (a string, an aggregation, a constitutive inference) checked against 'the five prohibitions of the series' negative heuristic'. The verb+resource pair is clear, but it never names or distinguishes itself from look-alike siblings such as fcs_conformance or fcs_withdrawal, so an agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use before emitting any user-facing claim that touches the FCS layer.' That is a clear when-to-use. There is no when-not guidance and no alternative sibling is named for cases where the caller wants a conformance or withdrawal check instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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