Skip to main content
Glama
julianbei

ARNO

by julianbei
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

arno.declare_command

Destructive

Declare or remove named shell commands in .arno/commands.json so run_command can reuse them in this and later sessions.

Instructions

Declare a named command in .arno/commands.json — a reproduction, a benchmark — to run with run_command in this and later sessions; the file is reviewed like any change. Declaring an existing name replaces it; do not redeclare one just to run it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runNoShell command to run from the workspace root.
kindNoOptional: lint or codegen; check with that kind runs it.
nameYesCommand name: lowercase letters, digits, ':', '_' or '-'.
rootNoWorktree for this call. Default: the one set with workspace, else the start tree.
removeNoDelete the named command instead of declaring it.
descriptionNoOptional note on what the command is for.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.0.17
    • changedInput schema / properties / root / description
      Previous value: -"Worktree of this repository to act in. Defaults to the session's workspace."New value: +"Worktree for this call. Default: the one set with workspace, else the start tree."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.0.15
    • addedInput schema / properties / root
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Worktree of this repository to act in. Defaults to the session's workspace.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Addedv0.0.12

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With only destructiveHint=true supplied, the description carries the rest and does so well: it discloses persistence across sessions, that the target file is 'reviewed like any change' (i.e., a tracked, reviewable mutation), and that an existing name is overwritten rather than duplicated. It does not contradict the destructive hint. Remaining gaps are minor — no word on failure modes if the name is invalid or the workspace is unset.

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, front-loaded with the action and artifact, followed by the operational rules. Every clause carries distinct information (persistence, review, overwrite, non-redeclaration) with no filler.

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?

For a six-parameter declaration tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and a destructiveHint annotation, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: persistence scope, overwrite semantics, and the routing rule to run_command. Nothing essential is absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (including run, kind, root, and the remove toggle) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Declare) and resource (a named command in .arno/commands.json), and gives concrete examples of what such commands are (a reproduction, a benchmark). It explicitly separates itself from the sibling run_command by framing declaration as the setup step that run_command later consumes.

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?

Names the alternative and the condition: commands are 'to run with run_command', and it states an explicit when-not — 'do not redeclare one just to run it.' The replacement rule for existing names is also given, so the agent knows redeclaration is only warranted when changing the definition.

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