Skip to main content
Glama

fcop_check

Cross-references git working tree and frontmatter against the FCoP ledger to detect rule violations: files outside allowed directories and sub-agent role impersonation.

Instructions

FCoP audit. Cross-reference git working tree + frontmatter against the FCoP ledger.

Two independent post-hoc audits, both new in 0.7.1 (fcop_protocol_version: 1.6.0):

  1. Rule 0.a.1 drift — files in git status --porcelain that live outside docs/agents/{tasks,reports,issues,log}/ are by definition work performed without the task→do→report→archive cycle.

  2. Rule 1 sub-agent role impersonation — any session_id that signed files under more than one role code. One session = one role binding for life; cross-role usage is direct evidence that a sub-agent self-claimed a role its parent session was not assigned.

This tool is detection, not prevention. It surfaces the evidence; the protocol-mandated response is for ADMIN to file an ISSUE-* and decide handoff / co-review / distinct-role per Rule 1, just as for the role_occupancy table in fcop_report().

Decomposes to filesystem operations:

  • git status --porcelain -z from the project root.

  • Walk every TASK-*.md / REPORT-*.md / ISSUE-*.md in docs/agents/{tasks,reports,issues} + docs/agents/log/*.

  • Read frontmatter only; never task bodies.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoOutput language, ``zh`` or ``en``. Default: ``zh``.zh

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it decomposes to filesystem operations (git status, walking files, reading frontmatter only), and declares it is detection, not prevention. This provides sufficient transparency beyond the absence of annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with bullet points and clear sections, explaining the two audits concisely. It is verbose enough to be informative but not overly long, earning a high score.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers prerequisites (project root implied) and operational details (filesystem ops). It provides enough context for an AI agent to understand scope and usage.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with one optional parameter 'lang' described in the schema. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: cross-referencing git working tree and frontmatter against the FCoP ledger, with two specific audits (Rule 0.a.1 drift and Rule 1 sub-agent role impersonation). The verb 'audit' and resource 'FCoP ledger' are specific, and the tool is distinguished from siblings like fcop_report and fcop_audit.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description states usage as detection not prevention, and that the response is for ADMIN to file an ISSUE-*. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like fcop_report, but the context is implied via sibling names.

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