Skip to main content
Glama
halvrenofviryel

phionyx-pipeline-mcp

phionyx_verify_claim

Validate a completion claim using three-layer verification: parse declarations, cross-check with git diff, and apply physics gate. Call before marking a task as fixed or done.

Instructions

Verify a completion claim using three-layer verification. Call BEFORE saying 'fixed' or 'done'.

Layer 1: Parse your declarations (claim, evidence, paths) Layer 2: Cross-check paths against git diff (input verification) Layer 3: Physics gate (phi + entropy + revision thresholds)

P1 require_tool: if the claim asserts a factual / external-state fact (live / deployed / version / merged / tests-pass / endpoint-up) and the evidence is not externally bound (only code_review/none, not a run/inspection), the result carries require_tool{triggered,...}; with PHIONYX_GATE_REQUIRE_TOOL_ENFORCE=1 an otherwise- passing directive becomes 'require_tool' — go bind the evidence (run the tool) first.

Args: claim: What you're claiming (e.g. "scenario continuation bug is fixed") evidence: What test output proves it (e.g. "12 scenes played, quest_complete=True") evidence_type: Type of evidence — determines confidence weight. One of: browser_test, manual_repro, integration_test, endpoint_test, log_inspection, unit_test, code_review, none code_paths_tested: Comma-separated functions/endpoints you actually tested code_paths_affected: Comma-separated functions/endpoints affected by the change referenced_sources: (P2b) Comma-separated sources the claim cites/depends on (roadmap, spec, a module/file). Optional. read_paths: (P2b) Comma-separated sources actually Read/bound THIS turn. Optional — when BOTH this and referenced_sources are given, the gate checks read_but_not_bound (a cited source not bound this turn → continuity violation; with PHIONYX_GATE_CONTINUITY_ENFORCE=1 → 'regenerate'). Omit (leave null) when no read-set is available → check is skipped (non-regressive).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYes
evidenceYes
read_pathsNo
evidence_typeYes
code_paths_testedYes
referenced_sourcesNo
code_paths_affectedYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details three verification layers, require_tool logic based on evidence type, continuity checks with read_paths, and environment variable effects. Highly transparent.

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?

The description is lengthy but well-structured with sections and bullet points. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeated mention of three layers, but it is necessary for clarity. Front-loaded with primary purpose.

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?

Given 7 parameters, 5 required, and complex gate logic, the description covers all key aspects: layers, require_tool conditions, continuity checks, and environment variables. Very complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter's role in verification layers, including optionality of read_paths and the impact of evidence_type on require_tool. Fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool verifies a completion claim using three-layer verification. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

The description instructs to call BEFORE saying 'fixed' or 'done', and provides detailed conditions for require_tool and continuity checks. It lacks explicit alternatives among sibling tools but gives clear usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/halvrenofviryel/phionyx-pipeline-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server