Skip to main content
Glama

fcop_audit

Perform a one-time deep audit to identify protocol compliance gaps and generate a remediation report with executable fix commands.

Instructions

协议体检工具(ADR-0032)。扫描项目,发现协议合规缺口,产出"体检即整改方案"报告。

fcop_check 的区别:

  • fcop_check — 日常轻量自检(working-tree drift + session/role 冲突)

  • fcop_audit — 一次性深度体检(协议合规度全量扫描 + 整改方案)

三个 scope:

  • new : 新项目验收 — 协议文件是否完整部署

  • upgrade : 版本升级后验收 — 规则版本 / 文档是否同步

  • takeover : 老 non-fcop 项目首次引入 fcop — 全量合规扫描(含 6 类盲区)

  • auto : 自动推断(推荐)

产出物:fcop/shared/INSPECTION-{date}-{NNN}-{scope}.md

报告含 Execution Block:每条违规附带可直接复制的整改命令、执行人、 Tier 优先级和回滚方式。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeNo``"new"`` | ``"upgrade"`` | ``"takeover"`` | ``"auto"``auto
outputNo``"file"`` 写报告文件(默认) | ``"stdout"`` 仅返回 Markdown | ``"both"`` 写文件并返回file
project_pathNo保留参数(暂未使用),实际路径由 FCOP_DIR 环境变量或当前目录决定.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details output format (file path), includes Execution Block with remediation commands, priorities, and rollback instructions, and explains delivery modes.

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 clear sections, comparison, and bullet points. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose with markdown formatting.

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?

Given no annotations, the description is highly complete, covering purpose, usage, output, parameters, and sibling differentiation. No missing critical information.

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage for 3 parameters with descriptions. The description adds context by explaining scope values and output options, but schema already does most of the work.

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 it is a protocol compliance audit tool that scans projects, identifies compliance gaps, and produces a report. It uses specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling fcop_check.

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?

Explicitly compares with fcop_check, providing when to use each tool. Lists four scopes (new, upgrade, takeover, auto) with descriptions, guiding appropriate usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/joinwell52-AI/FCoP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server