Skip to main content
Glama
gregordadera

aicb-roslyn-mcp

by gregordadera
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Check a Negative Claim

assert_absence
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate negative claims about a C# model—such as no covering tests or a missing semantic axis—and return confirmed, refuted, or indeterminate with evidence.

Instructions

Check a NEGATIVE claim against the analyzed model and return confirmed / refuted / indeterminate with evidence. Supported: 'no_tests:' (the symbol has no detected covering test), 'absent:.' (the semantic axis is verified-absent - developer declared 'none', NOT merely unknown), and 'unknown:.' (the axis has no provenance entry at all). is a bare name or the qualified Type.Member form - the same strings find_usages / find_tests_for / impact_of_change resolve, so the pre-edit gate's tools accept one vocabulary; a name that resolves to nothing declared says so ('resolves to no declared type or member'), which is a statement about the name, not a claim the code lacks it. axis is e.g. role/layer/domain/context/responsibility; an axis name not recorded anywhere in the solution returns 'indeterminate' with the actual recorded axes as evidence (a typo'd/invented axis is NOT silently 'confirmed'). Conservative in BOTH directions: a claim the model cannot prove is 'indeterminate', never falsely confirmed - and 'refuted' for a no_tests claim requires at least one STRONG covering test, as find_tests_for defines its tiers; the reason states the split between the strong tiers and the name-only matches, matching find_tests_for's invokesTotal. Tests that merely carry the symbol in their NAME yield 'indeterminate' with that split disclosed, not a refutation - a test named after a symbol is not proof it exercises it. Use to validate 'this service is untested' or 'role is explicitly unset' before relying on it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYesThe negative claim: 'no_tests:<Symbol>', 'absent:<Symbol>.<axis>', or 'unknown:<Symbol>.<axis>'.
sessionIdYesThe session_id returned by analyze_solution. Also takes an absolute .sln/.slnx/.slnf path, analyzed on first use.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.46513
    • changedInput schema / properties / sessionId / description
      Previous value: -"The session_id returned by analyze_solution."New value: +"The session_id returned by analyze_solution. Also takes an absolute .sln/.slnx/.slnf path, analyzed on first use."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: conservatism in both directions, that refutation requires a STRONG covering test per find_tests_for tiers, that name-only matches yield indeterminate with the tier split, and that typo'd/invented axes return indeterminate rather than a false confirm.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return values, and most sentences carry distinct information. It is dense with parenthetical qualifications that border on overload, but almost none is filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, yet the description spells out return values (confirmed/refuted/indeterminate with evidence) and the edge-case returns (unresolved names, unrecorded axes). With 2 fully-covered params and annotations supplying safety, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: it decodes each claim token ('absent' means developer-declared none, NOT unknown; 'unknown' means no provenance entry), explains the Symbol vocabulary shared with find_usages/find_tests_for/impact_of_change, and defines what an axis is with examples (role/layer/domain/context/responsibility).

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (check/assert) and a specific resource (a NEGATIVE claim against the analyzed model), and enumerates the three supported claim tokens with their precise meanings. It is clearly distinguishable from the positive-verification sibling verify_claim.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says when to use it ('validate this service is untested or role is explicitly unset before relying on it') and defines which claim shapes are in scope. It does not, however, name verify_claim as the positive-claim alternative, so the sibling routing is implied rather than stated.

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