Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Cortex

Cortex

by igrechuhin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Run Docs Gate

run_docs_gate
Idempotent

Validates timestamps, roadmap_sync, and memory-bank file consistency after documentation updates. Ensures documentation integrity without running tests or code quality checks.

Instructions

Run Phase B docs/memory-bank sync validation. Zero args required.

USE WHEN: Validating that timestamps, roadmap_sync, and memory-bank files are consistent after documentation updates. Called by the commit-docs subagent as a zero-arg alternative to execute_pre_commit_checks(phase="B") (which Cursor's MCP bridge zero-args to Phase A, running tests instead).

RETURNS: JSON with docs_phase_passed (bool), timestamps_result, and roadmap_sync_result. Does NOT run tests or code quality checks.

EXAMPLES:

  • run_docs_gate() after updating memory-bank files via manage_file() in Phase B of the commit pipeline.

  • run_docs_gate() to re-check roadmap_sync and timestamps without re-running tests or other quality checks.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "run_docs_gate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Describes what it checks and returns. Safe (idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false). Could explicitly state no side effects, but good.

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?

Well-structured with headings, examples, concise. No wasted sentences.

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?

Complete for a zero-arg tool: covers purpose, usage, returns, and examples. No gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

No parameters, schema coverage 100%. Description confirms 'Zero args required', but not much more needed.

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?

Clearly states it validates docs/memory-bank sync in Phase B. Specific verb 'validate' and resource 'docs/memory-bank sync'. Distinguishes from siblings like run_quality_gate.

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' section and examples. Explains when NOT to use (does not run tests) and provides alternative. Clear guidance.

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