engineering-standards
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| get_standardA | Retrieve a specific engineering standard. Available standards: git, code_review, pr, staff_engineer, testing, rails, frontend, deployment, incident_response, observability, api_design, database_design, architecture_decisions, technical_debt, standup |
| review_branch_nameA | Check if a git branch name follows conventions (issue ID prefix, kebab-case) |
| review_commit_messageA | Check if a commit message follows conventions (imperative mood, subject length, structure) |
| staff_engineer_reviewB | Run through the staff engineer thinking checklist for a given context (pre-code, pre-pr, post-merge, incident) |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_standard retrieves documentation, review_branch_name and review_commit_message validate specific artifacts, and staff_engineer_review runs a workflow checklist. No two tools overlap or could cause misselection.
Three tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_standard, review_branch_name, review_commit_message), but staff_engineer_review breaks the pattern by leading with a noun and using 'review' as a noun rather than a verb. This is a minor inconsistency in an otherwise predictable convention.
Four tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and appropriately scoped for a standards server. Each tool earns its place for retrieval, validation, and checklist support without redundancy.
The server covers the core needs of retrieving standards and validating branch names and commit messages, plus a staff engineer review checklist. Minor gaps exist like PR title validation or code style checks, but agents can retrieve standards and apply them manually, so no severe dead ends.