Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
respec-mcp

respec-mcp

by danielcamposramos
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Preflight ReSpec Source (source-only, no render)

respec_preflight

Check source files for policy violations like missing required sections, forbidden phrases, or incorrect statuses before editing, without full rendering.

Instructions

Fast policy checks against the source file without rendering: required sections, required links, forbidden phrases, allowed statuses. Use this before edits to catch policy violations cheaply.

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": "respec_preflight"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
profileNo
statusNo
overridesNo
sourceNo
outputNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses it is fast, source-only, and no rendering, plus the checks performed. However, it does not mention side effects, destruction, or rate limits. With zero annotations, a 3 is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value with no fluff. Excellent conciseness.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the source parameter, what output produces, or the return format. Only the high-level policy checks are mentioned.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (profile, status, overrides, source, output). The description only lists what the tool checks, adding no parameter-specific meaning. This is a critical gap.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Fast policy checks against the source file without rendering', listing specific checks like required sections and forbidden phrases. It distinguishes from siblings like respec_build which does rendering.

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?

The description provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before edits to catch policy violations cheaply.' It implies that for rendering one should use respec_build, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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