Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-sing

mcp-sing

by luizrodrigues034
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

measure_fidelity

Measures deviation between a scanned signature and a master signature to block approval if the deviation exceeds a specified tolerance.

Instructions

Mede desvio scan×mestre (best-effort). Reprovar bloqueia aprovação; passar NÃO aprova só.

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": {
      "signature_id": "<signature_id>",
      "scan_path": "<scan_path>"
    },
    "name": "measure_fidelity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tol_mmNo
scan_pathYes
signature_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses best-effort nature and that reproving blocks approval while passing does not approve alone. This adds some behavioral insight but lacks details on side effects, prerequisites, or state changes.

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?

Extremely concise (two sentences) but the first sentence is cryptic and the structure is not front-loaded with clear purpose. Could be clearer without adding length.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain inputs, outputs, or prerequisites. The behavioral hints are insufficient for full understanding.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and description does not explain any of the three parameters (tol_mm, scan_path, signature_id). No additional meaning beyond the schema is provided.

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 states it measures deviation between scan and master, but the phrasing is cryptic and unclear about the exact meaning of 'scan×mestre'. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are about calibration and motion, so purpose is somewhat clear but could be improved.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions behavioral effects like reproving blocking approval but does not compare to other tools or specify context.

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