Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-adr

mcp-adr

by mauriziomocci
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

adr_impact

Find all ADRs that reference a specific component to identify its influence and related decisions.

Instructions

Find all ADRs that mention a component.

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": {
      "component": "<component>"
    },
    "name": "adr_impact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
componentYes
project_pathNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully describe behavior. It only states 'find all ADRs that mention a component' but does not specify whether it searches full text, titles, or metadata, nor does it mention return format, side effects (none expected), or any limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the verb. However, it is somewhat under-specified; a slightly more detailed statement would not harm conciseness.

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 the existence of an output schema (which defines return structure), the description still misses contextual details like what constitutes a 'mention' (exact match, substring, case sensitivity) and the scope of search (all ADRs or only recent). This makes the tool harder to use correctly.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (component and project_path) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'component' refers to (e.g., name, path) or the role of project_path, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

The description states 'Find all ADRs that mention a component.' This clearly identifies the verb (find) and resource (ADRs) with a specific scope (mentioning a component), which distinguishes it from siblings like adr_list (lists all ADRs) and adr_search (generic search).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify when to use adr_impact over adr_search or adr_list, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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