Skip to main content
Glama
penta2himajin

noveletary

add_constraint

Add a constraint to enforce narrative consistency, such as forbidding actions after a terminal state or ensuring numerical monotonicity.

Instructions

[constraint] 制約を1件追加する(作者の指示でルールを微調整)。template:

  • forbid_after_state: 終端状態の後に特定属性を禁止(EC慣性)。params={terminal_attr, terminal_value, forbidden_attrs}。例: 死後の行為禁止。

  • monotone: 数値の単調性。params={attr, direction("nondecreasing"|"nonincreasing")}。例: 台帳の増加。

  • acyclic: 順序の無循環。params={order_attr}。例: 時間順序。

  • release: 終端状態の解放(EC Release)=forbid_after_stateの例外。params={terminal_attr, terminal_value, subject?}。例: 派生作で死者復活を許可。 scope={subject:..} で対象主体を限定可。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo
scopeNo
branchYes
paramsYes
templateYes
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate a write operation, and the description confirms adding a constraint. However, it lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as overwrite behavior, limits, or permission requirements.

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?

The description is relatively concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, but uses mixed language (Japanese/English) which may reduce clarity. It could be more streamlined.

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 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the main templates adequately but omits return values, error cases, and the note/branch parameters. Sibling distinction is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

The description explains the template parameter and its possible values in detail, and mentions scope, but does not cover branch, note, or params at the parameter level. With 0% schema coverage, this partial coverage is adequate but not complete.

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 explicitly states the tool adds a constraint (verb+resource) and lists four distinct templates with examples, clearly distinguishing from siblings like set_constraint or list_constraints.

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?

Usage is implied through template descriptions and examples, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_constraint, nor any when-not conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/penta2himajin/noveletary'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server