Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ArchLog MCP

ArchLog MCP

by hongzhuan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

archlog_validate_request

Validates and normalizes a GitHub C/C++ release range using repository URL and commit references. No checkout or analysis is performed.

Instructions

Validate and normalize a GitHub C/C++ release range. This performs no checkout and starts no analysis.

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": {
      "repo_url": "<repo_url>",
      "base_ref": "<base_ref>",
      "head_ref": "<head_ref>"
    },
    "name": "archlog_validate_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
base_refYes
head_refYes
repo_urlYes
output_languageNozh

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs no checkout and starts no analysis, which is valuable. However, it does not explain what 'normalize' entails or potential side effects beyond the stated limitations.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no redundant information. It is efficiently front-loaded with the primary action and then clarifies limitations.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description lacks parameter details and does not explain what validation or normalization means exactly. Although an output schema exists (not shown), the incomplete parameter descriptions reduce overall completeness for a 4-parameter tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It entirely fails to describe any of the four parameters (repo_url, base_ref, head_ref, output_language), leaving the agent without semantic understanding beyond the schema keys.

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 clearly states the tool validates and normalizes a GitHub C/C++ release range, with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly states what it does not do (no checkout, no analysis), distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely perform analysis or environment checks.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies this tool is for preliminary validation before analysis, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it vs. the sibling tools. No direct contrast or prerequisites are mentioned.

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