Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
achlens

achlens

by mscott9160-web
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

repair_control_records_tool

Repairs derived ACH control records by recalculating totals and counts, then returns corrected content in content mode.

Instructions

Repair derived controls, returning content only in content mode.

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": "repair_control_records_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo
contentNo
restore_trailing_spacesNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at a mode-dependent return ('content only in content mode') but does not say what 'repair' actually mutates, whether a file at 'path' is overwritten, whether it requires valid ACH structure, or what errors occur on malformed input.

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?

A single short sentence is appropriately sized, but the second half ('returning content only in content mode') is ambiguous jargon that does not clearly earn its place, leaving the whole front-loaded but under-informative.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a mutation-style tool with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the definition omits the operation's effect on the target file, its inputs, and its failure behavior.

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 description coverage is 0% for three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Content mode' obliquely gestures at the 'content' parameter, but 'path' and 'restore_trailing_spaces' receive no explanation in either schema or 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('repair derived controls'), which in the ACH domain suggests recalculating control totals/records. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like explain_control_totals or validate_ach_file, and the trailing clause about 'content mode' muddies rather than sharpens the purpose.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_ach_file or explain_control_totals, nor prerequisites. The only guidance-like phrase, 'returning content only in content mode,' is cryptically worded and does not map to any named parameter or sibling.

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