Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
daf-jev

daf-jev

by docxology
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

jev_docs_verify

Verifies a docs/reference snapshot against its manifest to detect missing, drifted, or added pages and confirm consistency. Checks the shipped manifest or a specified manifest path.

Instructions

Verify the docs/reference snapshot against its manifest. manifest selects an explicit manifest path; None (default) verifies the shipped snapshot manifest (daf_jev.docs_verify.DEFAULT_MANIFEST).

Same verifier as the daf-jev docs-verify CLI command (:func:daf_jev.docs_verify.verify_manifest). On success returns {manifest, pages, missing, drifted, added, ok}; when the manifest cannot be read or parsed, returns {error, message, ok: false} instead. An unknown provider returns the {error, message, ok: false} shape instead of raising.

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": "jev_docs_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
manifestNo
providerNojev

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the success payload keys (manifest, pages, missing, drifted, added, ok), the error payload shape for unreadable/unparseable manifests, and that an unknown provider returns an error object rather than raising. That non-raising error contract is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs. It does not state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the text is cluttered with reST markup (double backticks, :func: role, fully qualified module paths) that adds noise for an agent. The trailing ``provider`` sentence reads as an afterthought appended to the error discussion. Content is mostly useful but not tight.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter verification tool with no output schema, the description covers the important pieces: what is verified, how the target is selected, and both return shapes including the failure path. Remaining gaps are the meaning of the reported fields (drifted, added) and the provider parameter's domain, neither of which is documented anywhere else.

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 0% across two parameters, so the description must compensate. It does well for ``manifest``, explaining the explicit-path versus None/default-to-shipped-manifest semantics. For ``provider`` it only says an unknown value yields the error shape, without explaining what a provider is, what values are valid, or what the default 'jev' implies.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Verify the docs/reference snapshot against its manifest.' That is a concrete, checkable operation clearly unlike the sibling evaluation tools (jev_evaluate, jev_tiered_gate, etc.). It stops short of an explicit sibling contrast, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the description of the default: passing ``None`` verifies the shipped snapshot manifest, while an explicit path targets another manifest. There is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no prerequisites, and no guidance on when an agent should verify versus evaluate or score. The CLI equivalence ('same verifier as daf-jev docs-verify') helps orient a human but not tool selection.

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