Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agda-mcp

agda-mcp

by peterthiemann
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

agda_load_module

Load and typecheck a top-level Agda module from disk, optionally selecting a workspace root and returning diagnostics or a job handle for non-blocking checks.

Instructions

Load and typecheck one top-level Agda module from disk; with --dynamic-workspaces, pass workspaceRoot to select its workspace at runtime

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asyncNotrue always returns a job handle; false blocks until Agda finishes
timeoutMsNoOverride the configured Agda command timeout for this call
includeRawNoInclude Agda's native event log; omitted by default because it is large
modulePathYesAbsolute path to an .agda, .lagda, or .lagda.md file
deferAfterMsNoHow long this call may block before returning a job handle; capped by maxJobWaitMs
workspaceRootNoAbsolute workspace root containing modulePath; roots outside the configured allowlist require --dynamic-workspaces
diagnosticsOnlyNoReturn only errors and warnings, dropping goals and metavariables
includeContextsNoRetrieve every returned goal context in the same MCP operation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.1
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • addedInput schema / properties / workspaceRoot
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Absolute workspace root containing modulePath; roots outside the configured allowlist require --dynamic-workspaces",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the disk-loading scope and the workspace allowlist constraint, but says nothing about blocking behavior, job handles, error/failure semantics, or what gets loaded into the Agda process state—gaps that matter for a tool with async and defer options.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and the conditional clause second. Zero wasted words.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin: it never mentions the job-handle model implied by async/deferAfterMs, nor result shape. The schema covers parameters, but the description leaves the overall operating model underspecified.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in structured form; the description only echoes the workspaceRoot/--dynamic-workspaces condition. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Load and typecheck one top-level Agda module from disk') with clear scope. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool agda_typecheck, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which one to pick.

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 only usage guidance is conditional: pass workspaceRoot with --dynamic-workspaces to select a workspace. There is no statement of when to use this tool versus agda_typecheck or the job tools, so the primary routing decision is left 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