Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ecu-harness

ecu-harness

by omaratif1995
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Validate

ecu_validate
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run full validation on AUTOSAR ECU configuration changes, listing introduced findings and indicating whether the open change passes the finish gate.

Instructions

Run the full validation. With an open change: the findings it introduced and whether it may be finished (gate).

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_validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum findings to list, default 20.
scopeNonew = only findings introduced by the open change (default); all = every finding.
offsetNoSkip this many findings (paging).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the run returns the findings introduced by the open change and a verdict on whether the change may be finished — behavior beyond the annotations. It omits what a run does with no open change and any sense of cost or duration for a 'full' validation.

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?

It is short, but the second sentence is a sentence fragment with elided verbs, which is under-specification rather than true conciseness. The core action is front-loaded correctly, yet the reader has to reconstruct the meaning of the trailing clause.

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 validation tool with no output schema, the description should carry more of the return-shape and gating burden. It covers the headline results (new findings, gate verdict) but leaves the no-open-change path, severity/format of findings, and the gate's pass/fail semantics unexplained.

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 description coverage is 100% and all three parameters (limit, scope, offset) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'the findings it introduced' loosely matches the default scope=new but adds no paging or limit semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb+resource is specific ('Run the full validation') and clearly distinct from the sibling change/edit/find tools. The second sentence adds what the run yields (findings introduced by the open change plus a finish-gate verdict), but its telegraphic, fragmentary grammar ('With an open change: the findings it introduced and whether...') makes the purpose read less cleanly than it should.

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?

The phrase 'With an open change' implies the context in which this tool is meaningful, and '(gate)' hints it precedes finishing a change. However, it never states what happens without an open change, nor names ecu_change_finish as the action this gates, so the when-to-use routing is only implied.

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