Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Compounding MCP

Compounding MCP

by dshguilherme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

swarm_ancestry

Trace Git parent commits and informed_by dependencies from a candidate SHA in the configured repository to verify ancestry and provenance for swarm contributions.

Instructions

Trace Git parents and informed_by dependencies from a candidate SHA in the configured repository.

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": {
      "swarm_id": "<swarm_id>",
      "candidate_sha": "<candidate_sha>"
    },
    "name": "swarm_ancestry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
swarm_idYes
candidate_shaYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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 behavioral burden. 'Trace' implies a read-only traversal and the phrase 'configured repository' hints at implicit context, but it does not disclose whether traversal is recursive, whether there are depth limits, permission requirements, or what the traversal returns.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single tight sentence that leads with the verb and the resource, with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity comes partly at the cost of missing detail rather than pure efficiency.

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?

For a dependency-tracing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is thin: it never defines what 'informed_by' means, how deep the trace goes, or how swarm_id scopes the lookup. An agent could call it but cannot predict the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains candidate_sha only implicitly ('from a candidate SHA') and says nothing about the role of swarm_id, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 ('Trace') and specific resources ('Git parents and informed_by dependencies') anchored to a candidate SHA. The purpose is concrete enough to distinguish it from the other swarm_* lifecycle tools, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to trace ancestry versus calling swarm_status or swarm_commit, nor any prerequisite such as needing a prior swarm_init or a valid candidate SHA. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.

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