Baseline Checker
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| check_baselineA | Analyzes web code for Baseline compatibility. Pass the complete code to get compatibility percentage and specific issues. |
| check_baseline_from_selectionB | AUTOMATIC CODE RETRIEVAL: Analyzes the currently selected code or active file for Baseline compatibility. No need to copy/paste code - this tool automatically gets the code from the editor. Use this to save tokens and avoid manual code copying. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
Both tools perform Baseline compatibility analysis, but their input mechanisms are clearly distinguished: one takes explicit code, the other auto-retrieves the current selection/file. The descriptions make the intended use cases distinct enough to avoid most misselection.
Both tools use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern with a shared 'check_baseline' prefix. The suffix clearly denotes the variant.
Two tools is on the low end, but appropriate for a narrow single-purpose checker. One tool handles explicit code and the other handles automatic editor retrieval, so each earns its place without redundancy.
The server covers the core workflow of checking Baseline compatibility, both for pasted code and current editor context. Minor gaps like batch or directory-level checks exist, but the primary use cases are well covered.