Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SuperSkill

SuperSkill

by permanu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

claims

Read-only

Verify structured code assertions against a deterministic code-graph scan: check file/symbol existence, exports, imports, and callers/importers. Returns verified, refuted, or unverifiable verdicts.

Instructions

Verify structured claims against a deterministic code-graph scan of a root (default cwd). Kinds: file-exists {path}, symbol-exists {name,file?}, symbol-exported {name,file}, import-resolves {from,specifier}, no-other-importers {file}, no-other-callers {symbol,file?}. Returns verified|refuted|unverifiable with node ids and edge confidence; hard verdicts require EXTRACTED facts.

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": {
      "claims": "<claims>"
    },
    "name": "claims"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rootNoScan root (default: cwd)
claimsYesClaims to verify
workspace_pathNoAbsolute thread workspace directory; must map to this project. Omit only when the server cwd is the thread workspace.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / claims / items / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Addedv0.13.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the tri-state verdict (verified|refuted|unverifiable), that results carry node ids and edge confidence, and the crucial constraint that hard verdicts require EXTRACTED facts. This is genuine behavioral context, though nothing is said about determinism guarantees across re-scans or failure modes.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the kind list, and the return-value sentence earns its place. The kind enumeration is long but necessary given six variants.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return contract and it does: verdict vocabulary, node ids, edge confidence, and the EXTRACTED-facts requirement. Combined with 100% schema coverage on inputs, an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by mapping each claim kind to its required fields (e.g., file-exists {path}, import-resolves {from,specifier}), telling the agent which payload shape to build per kind — information the schema only implies field-by-field.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Verify structured claims against a deterministic code-graph scan of a root'. The kind enumeration further pins down exactly what can be verified, distinguishing it from generic scan/graph tools among the siblings.

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 by 'verify structured claims' but the description never states when to prefer this over siblings like graph_related, graph_traverse, or evidence, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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