Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
claude-init

claude-init

by horiastanxd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

check_context_files

Verify AI context files in a project, reporting each file as ok, stale, or missing based on repository state.

Instructions

Check whether the existing AI context files match the current repository. Reports per-file ok/stale/missing.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "check_context_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path to the project directory
targetsNo
outputDirNoDirectory holding the files (default: the project path)
recurseNoAlso check each workspace package for a monorepo (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that tool checks files and reports status (ok/stale/missing). However, no details on error behavior, permissions needed, or side effects. Adequate for a read-only check.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with action and result. Every word earns its place.

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?

Returns minimal info on output ('per-file status'), but lacks details on output format (e.g., list, object). For a 4-param tool with no output schema, description is barely adequate.

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 75% but the 'targets' parameter has enum values without description. The tool description does not explain what 'targets' represent. Thus, for the unexplained parameter, description adds no value.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'check' and resource 'existing AI context files' with clear outcome ('Reports per-file ok/stale/missing'). Clearly distinguishes from siblings 'analyze_project' (broader) and 'generate_context_files' (creation).

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?

Description implies usage for verifying context file freshness but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or mention when not to use. No exclusions or prerequisites provided.

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