Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gantry

Gantry

by fourn9
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

design

Read-only

Create or revise versioned robotics development specifications in Gantry using intent and basis, with optional existing-ID updates and idempotency keys.

Instructions

design

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": {
      "arguments": "<arguments>"
    },
    "name": "design"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argumentsYes
idempotency_keyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is supplied structurally. However, the description adds zero context: it does not say what a "design" operation returns, whether it computes an assessment or records one, or what state it touches — and the presence of free-form basis/intent objects makes the read-only claim worth explaining. The description does not contradict the annotations outright, but it leaves all behavioral burden on them.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

One word is not concise, it is under-specified; there is nothing front-loaded or structured because there is no content at all. The size problem is absence of information rather than excess wording.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with nested object parameters, an idempotency key, no output schema, and no documentation anywhere in the schema, the description should carry substantial weight. It carries none, so an agent cannot confidently construct a valid call or interpret the result.

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 both parameters are undocumented. The nested basis and intent objects have untyped, unspecified structure, and the description provides no explanation of what they should contain or how design_id relates to them. This is a complete gap in the most ambiguous part of the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of any alternative. With roughly 40 sibling tools including get_design_assessment, review_context, and impact, the agent has no basis for choosing this one over them.

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