Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CodeGuardian MCP

CodeGuardian MCP

by codegoddy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_api_contract_report

Validates project API contracts against the actual codebase, identifies mismatches and hallucinations, and provides a detailed report with actionable recommendations.

Instructions

Generate a detailed API Contract validation report with recommendations.

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": {
      "projectPath": "<projectPath>"
    },
    "name": "get_api_contract_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPathYesAbsolute path to the project root

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.4.8

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not disclose whether this tool reads existing validation data, triggers new validation, is read-only, or produces side effects like writing files or taking a long time.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, and every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

This is a minimal description for a tool with no annotations and no output schema, surrounded by similarly named validation tools. It doesn't explain whether validation must be run first, what the report contains, or how it differs from validate_api_contracts and get_validation_results.

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%, and the projectPath parameter is already described as 'Absolute path to the project root'. The description adds no further meaning about how the path is used or what project structure is expected, so it stays at the baseline.

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 clear verb ('Generate') and object ('API Contract validation report'), so the core purpose is understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like validate_api_contracts or get_validation_results, but the name and wording strongly suggest a reporting action.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_api_contracts, get_validation_results, or get_validation_status. There is no mention of prerequisites, sequencing, or conditions that should lead an agent to choose this tool.

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