Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kit-mcp

kit-mcp

by luanpdd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

forensics

Collect failure data and replay failed agent runs to analyze outcomes and document learnings.

Instructions

Failure dataset & replays — close the learning loop on failed agent runs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "forensics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentNoFor action=reflect: agent name (e.g. executor)
actionYes
dryRunNoFor action=reflect: only save the assembled prompt, no API call
outcomeNoFor action=annotate-replay
payloadNoFor action=record-replay: the Task() payload to store.
replayIdNo
projectRootNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.29.0
  2. Removedv1.22.0
  3. Addedv1.21.0
  4. Removedv1.15.0
  5. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions 'failure dataset' and 'replays' but not whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short phrase, which is concise but not a full sentence. It lacks structured information like what actions are available.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with 7 parameters and 8 action enums and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of each action or the expected outcome.

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?

Schema coverage is 57%, but the description adds no parameter-level details. Parameters like 'replayId' and 'projectRoot' lack descriptions in both schema and description.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Failure dataset & replays — close the learning loop on failed agent runs' gives a vague sense of purpose but lacks a clear verb and resource. It does not differentiate from siblings like 'metrics-snapshot' or 'sync'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for failed agent runs but gives no context on prerequisites or when to avoid.

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