Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Merovingian MCP Server

Merovingian MCP Server

by evo-hydra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

merovingian_impact

Map consumer dependencies and assess full impact of changes to any repository, enabling informed decisions before modifying code or APIs.

Instructions

Full impact assessment with consumer mapping for a repository.

Args: repo_name: Name of the repository to assess

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": {
      "repo_name": "<repo_name>"
    },
    "name": "merovingian_impact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

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 must cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose if the tool is read-only, modifies state, requires permissions, or has side effects. 'Impact assessment' suggests analysis but lacks specifics on cost, rate limits, or dependencies.

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 with an Args line, front-loaded purpose, no redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose without waste.

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 complex 'full impact assessment' tool, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'impact' entails, what the output contains (despite an output schema), or any operational context (e.g., whether the repo must be registered first). The agent would need more to use it effectively.

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%, but the description adds meaning by stating 'repo_name: Name of the repository to assess' beyond the type-only schema. The addition is clear but minimal, providing basic clarification.

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 'Full impact assessment with consumer mapping for a repository,' providing a specific verb and resource. It implies differentiation from siblings like merovingian_scan or merovingian_breaking, but does not explicitly distinguish them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or when-not conditions. The description relies on the tool name for context, which is insufficient for an agent to choose correctly among sibling tools.

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