Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fernandogarzaaa

chimeralang-mcp

by fernandogarzaaa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

chimera_fracture

Full pipeline: optimize documents → compress messages → budget gate. Returns quality_passed, budget_remaining, lossy_dropped_count.

Instructions

Full pipeline: optimize documents → compress messages → budget gate. Returns quality_passed, budget_remaining, lossy_dropped_count.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
focusNoOptional task focus/query. Used by quantum compression to retain the most relevant facts.
messagesNoConversation history [{role, content}]. Compressed to fit token_budget before processing.
algorithmNoCompression algorithm. quantum = query-aware salience selection. classic = legacy whitespace/filler compression.quantum
documentsNoDocument strings to optimise and compress.
allow_lossyNoWhen True and token_budget is exceeded, drop lowest-importance messages until the budget is met. Default False (lossless).
token_budgetNoMaximum tokens for the compressed output. Default 1500.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / messages / items
      Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "content": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Message text, or a list of content blocks ({type: text, text})."
+    },
+    "role": {
+      "description": "user | assistant | system",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "content"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.8.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the pipeline stages and the return contract (quality_passed, budget_remaining, lossy_dropped_count), which hints at lossy dropping and a quality gate, but says nothing about side effects (in-place mutation of documents?), permissions, or limits.

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?

Two compact, front-loaded sentences using arrow notation; the return fields are listed tersely. No filler, though the return-value list could arguably live elsewhere given there's no output schema.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 6-parameter orchestration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the pipeline shape and outputs but omits when-to-use guidance, how allow_lossy interacts with token_budget at runtime, and whether inputs are mutated. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so all 6 parameters including algorithm enum, token_budget, and allow_lossy are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'optimize documents → compress messages → budget gate' loosely maps to some params but adds no syntax or default details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 composite action: a three-stage pipeline (optimize documents → compress messages → budget gate). The name 'fracture' is opaque, but the description compensates. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the stage-level siblings chimera_optimize/chimera_compress, though 'Full pipeline' implies the distinction.

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 — an agent can infer this is the all-in-one entry point versus the individual stage tools, but the description never states when to prefer it over chimera_optimize or chimera_compress, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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