Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
portfolio-drift-mcp

portfolio-drift-mcp

by odanree
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

audit_single_project

Audit a specific project by ID to detect portfolio drift. Completes in about 10 seconds, providing faster insights than a full audit.

Instructions

Audit one project by id. Faster than the full audit (~10 seconds).

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "audit_single_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesid from the portfolio backend (Beacon uses UUIDs).
adapterNowhich portfolio backend to read from. Default "beacon".beacon
modelNoAnthropic model id override.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description reveals speed (~10 seconds) but lacks details on what the audit entails, side effects, or return behavior, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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 extremely concise with two well-front-loaded sentences. Each sentence is essential, and there is no redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context on the audit process and output structure, making it incomplete for a full understanding.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, which already explains project_id and adapter.

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 states it audits one project by id, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'audit_portfolio_drift' by noting it's faster, indicating a specific verb+resource+scope.

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?

The description provides context on when to use it (faster than the full audit) and implies it's for single projects, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative sibling tool.

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