Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
certified-mcp

certified-mcp

by nickharris808
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

check_drat

Verify DRAT refutations against CNF formulas in DIMACS format. Determines if every lemma is RUP, returning the first failing lemma's index and content.

Instructions

Check a DRAT refutation against a CNF in DIMACS form. Accepts proofs from any solver. Returns whether every lemma is RUP and, on failure, the index and content of the first lemma that does not follow.

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": {
      "cnf_path": "<cnf_path>",
      "drat_path": "<drat_path>"
    },
    "name": "check_drat"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cnf_pathYes
drat_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description discloses what the tool returns, including failure details. It implies a read-only check ('returns') and mentions flexibility in accepting proofs from any solver. It does not explicitly state side effects or limitations, but for a check operation this is sufficient.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

It covers the core behavior (check, input formats, output on success/failure) concisely. It lacks details on error handling or return format, but given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, it's largely complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It implies two file paths (CNF and DRAT) through the description but does not explicitly name the parameters. The meaning of 'RUP' and 'lemma' may be unclear to non-experts. Sufficient but not fully explicit.

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 clearly identifies the operation: checking a DRAT refutation against a CNF in DIMACS form. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., explain_certificate, verify_certificate) by focusing on RUP lemma verification with specific failure details.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides context on when to use (for any DRAT proof from any solver) and what it verifies (RUP lemmas). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope is evident from the description.

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