Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ecu-harness

ecu-harness

by omaratif1995
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Step-by-step procedures

ecu_recipe
Read-onlyIdempotent

List proven procedures for common tasks or read a named recipe to guide safe AUTOSAR ECU configuration edits.

Instructions

Proven procedures for common tasks. Without name: list them. With name: read one.

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": "ecu_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoRecipe name from the list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the tool is dual-mode and the presence of the optional 'name' parameter switches between enumerating and fetching. It does not describe the shape of a recipe or what a listing contains, keeping it below 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is and then the mode switch. No filler, though the opening phrase 'proven procedures for common tasks' is slightly promotional rather than informational.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essential call contract. It leaves open what a recipe contains, how listing results are formatted, and whether names must come exactly from a prior listing, which matters for correct follow-up calls.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'Recipe name from the list.' The description adds the key semantic that the parameter is optional and that omitting it changes the operation into a listing. That is marginal-but-real value over the schema, matching the baseline 3 for full-coverage schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a concrete verb-resource pairing (list/read recipes) and distinguishes its two operating modes by whether 'name' is supplied. It does not, however, contrast itself against siblings such as ecu_get or ecu_describe, which likely also retrieve content.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It clearly states the trigger for each internal mode ('Without name: list them. With name: read one'), which is implicit usage guidance. It offers no guidance on when to reach for recipes versus the other retrieval tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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