Skip to main content
Glama
heuristicolab

ctxfw

by heuristicolab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

evaluate_spec_axioms

Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate architectural briefs against determinism rules and Axiom Completeness Index during planning to catch issues before coding. Analytical, side-effect-free assessment.

Instructions

Evaluate an architectural brief against formal determinism rules, negative invariant floors, and the Axiom Completeness Index (ACI 1.0000). Use this during intake or planning phases before writing code. Pure analytical evaluation with no side effects.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brief_textYesMarkdown content of the architectural intake brief to evaluate

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesJSON-serialized architectural determinism verification report
isErrorYesTrue if brief specification evaluation encountered an unhandled error

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.5.6
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "content": {
+      "description": "JSON-serialized architectural determinism verification report",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "text": {
+            "description": "JSON report containing aci_score, negative_invariants_count, extracted_never_clauses, status, remediation_notes, and manifest_hash",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "enum": [
+              "text"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "type",
+          "text"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "isError": {
+      "description": "True if brief specification evaluation encountered an unhandled error",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "content",
+    "isError"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv3.5.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'Pure analytical evaluation with no side effects,' which reinforces and clarifies the tool's behavior without contradicting the annotations. No additional behavioral surprises are hidden.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, includes usage timing, and ends with a side-effect guarantee. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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?

With one fully documented parameter, robust annotations, an output schema present, and clear phase-based usage guidance, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 100% and the single parameter brief_text is already described as 'Markdown content of the architectural intake brief to evaluate.' The description adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Evaluate') with a clear resource ('architectural brief') and names concrete evaluation criteria (determinism rules, invariant floors, ACI 1.0000). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like prune_file and resolve_context_bundle.

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 states exactly when to use the tool ('during intake or planning phases before writing code'), giving clear temporal context. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it, but the stated phase guidance is sufficient for typical routing.

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