Skip to main content
Glama
heuristicolab

ctxfw

by heuristicolab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

evaluate_spec_axioms

Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate architectural specification briefs against formal determinism rules, negative invariants, and ACI 1.0000 during intake or planning; read-only, no side effects.

Instructions

Evaluate an architectural specification brief (brief_text) against formal determinism rules, negative invariant floors ('never'/'shall never'), and the Axiom Completeness Index (ACI 1.0000). Use this during intake or planning phases before writing code. For verifying unified git diff patches, use evaluate_patch instead. Pure read-only analytical evaluation with no side effects.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brief_textYesMarkdown content of the architectural intake brief to evaluate

Output 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
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the closing 'Pure read-only analytical evaluation with no side effects' largely restates structured data. It adds no new behavioral detail such as thresholds, failure modes, or what an ACI below 1.0000 produces, leaving it at adequate-but-thin beyond the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the routing hint and the safety note. No filler or repetition; every clause carries actionable information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations already cover the safety profile. For a single-parameter analytical tool, the description plus structured fields give an agent everything needed to invoke it 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents `brief_text` as markdown brief content. The description names the parameter but adds no format constraints or size limits beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 (Evaluate) plus the exact resource (an architectural specification brief) and enumerates the rule families it checks (determinism rules, negative invariant floors, ACI 1.0000). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling evaluate_patch, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives both the when ('during intake or planning phases before writing code') and the alternative ('For verifying unified git diff patches, use evaluate_patch instead'). The selection condition between the two siblings is explicit and unambiguous.

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