Retrieve industry-standard patterns and checklists for architectural concerns—API, auth, database, testing, security, CI/CD—to support production-readiness audits.
Get full industry-standard patterns and checklists for any architectural concern: api, auth, database, testing, error_handling, logging, security, ci_cd, docker, branch_strategy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Pattern category (omit for all patterns) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The 'Get' verb and 'patterns and checklists' wording signal a read-only informational operation, but the description does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, external dependencies, or any output format details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One dense sentence with no filler: the resource is stated first, then the category list is appended in a clear colon structure. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what is returned and which categories are supported. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance and alternative routing, but the tool's complexity is low enough that this is a minor omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the optional category parameter, but the description adds real value by listing the valid category values since the schema defines no enum. This lets the agent know what strings are meaningful without opening any external reference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('full industry-standard patterns and checklists'), then enumerates relevant categories. It is clear in isolation, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like check_architecture or generate_security_checklist, leaving some differentiation to inference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: the agent should call this when the user needs standard reference patterns or checklists for an architectural concern. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as checking the current codebase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.