Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cairn

cairn

by juw12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

code_todos

Read-onlyIdempotent

Locate TODO, FIXME, and HACK comments in repository code with file and line references so developers can identify pending tasks and fixes.

Instructions

TODO, FIXME and HACK comments found in the repo's code, with file:line.

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": "code_todos"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond that: only three marker types are returned, and each result carries file:line provenance. It says nothing about scope (whole repo vs. workspace), ordering, or truncation behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and ending with the output shape. Nothing is redundant; there is no filler or restated title.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, annotations cover most of the behavioral burden and file:line hints at the return shape. However, the undocumented limit parameter and the absence of any repo/scope boundary leave gaps that would affect how an agent calls it.

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

Parameters2/5

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

There is one parameter, limit, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema supplies a type, range (1-500) and default (50) but no meaning. The description never mentions limit, so the agent gets no guidance on whether it bounds number of comments returned or number of files scanned.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (TODO/FIXME/HACK comments) and scope (the repo's code) in a single crisp fragment, which is enough to tell it apart from note/log/queue siblings. It does not name a scanning verb beyond 'found', but the intent is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; nothing tells the agent how this differs from search or context, which could also surface code content. The agent must infer that this is the targeted tool for code-comment lookups.

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