Skip to main content
Glama

get_checklist

Retrieve validation checklists for Laravel code layers to ensure proper implementation and adherence to coding standards.

Instructions

Get code validation checklist

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layerNoLayer to get checklist for, or "all" for everything

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the get_checklist tool. Reads the checklist.md file and optionally filters by layer (service, controller, model, request, resource, or migration).
    async ({ layer = 'all' }) => {
      const checklistPath = path.join(DOCS_PATH, 'ai/checklist.md');
    
      if (!fs.existsSync(checklistPath)) {
        throw new Error('Checklist documentation not found');
      }
    
      let content = fs.readFileSync(checklistPath, 'utf-8');
    
      if (layer !== 'all') {
        const sections = {
          service: '1. Service Layer Checklist',
          controller: '2. Controller Checklist',
          model: '3. Model Checklist',
          request: '4. Request Validation Checklist',
          resource: '5. Resource Checklist',
          migration: '6. Migration Checklist',
        };
    
        const sectionStart = content.indexOf(sections[layer]);
        const nextSectionStart = content.indexOf('\n##', sectionStart + 1);
    
        if (sectionStart === -1) {
          throw new Error(`Layer '${layer}' checklist not found`);
        }
    
        content = content.slice(sectionStart, nextSectionStart === -1 ? content.length : nextSectionStart);
      }
    
      return {
        content: [{
          type: 'text',
          text: content,
        }],
      };
    }
  • index.js:241-248 (registration)
    Registration of the get_checklist tool with the MCP server, including its description and input schema definition.
    server.registerTool(
      'get_checklist',
      {
        description: 'Get code validation checklist',
        inputSchema: {
          layer: z.enum(['all', 'service', 'controller', 'model', 'request', 'resource', 'migration']).optional().describe('Layer to get checklist for, or "all" for everything'),
        },
      },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the checklist returns in, whether there are rate limits, or if it's a cached/real-time operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

The description 'Get code validation checklist' is extremely concise - just four words that communicate the core purpose. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what a 'code validation checklist' contains, what format it returns, or how it differs from related tools. The agent would need to guess about the output format and behavioral characteristics.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'layer' fully documented in the schema including its enum values. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get code validation checklist' clearly states the action (get) and resource (code validation checklist), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_design_system' or 'get_templates' - all appear to be retrieval operations for different types of content.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the parameter description mentions 'all' for everything, there's no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of sibling tools that might serve related purposes like 'get_templates' or 'search_docs'.

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/pujandan/mcp-laravel'

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