tentra

record_contract

Store service contracts (OpenAPI, gRPC, event schemas) in a code graph for AI coding agents to reference and use with bind_contract operations.

Instructions

Persist a service contract (OpenAPI, proto, event schema, etc.) to the code graph. Returns a contract_id to use with bind_contract.

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": {
      "workspace_id": "<workspace_id>",
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "record_contract"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`workspace_id`	Yes	Workspace to store contract in
`kind`	Yes	Contract type — matches the parser output kind
`name`	Yes	Human-readable contract name (e.g. "Payment Service API")
`version`	Yes	Contract version (e.g. "1.2.0" or "payments.v1")
`spec_url`	No	Optional URL to the raw spec file (OpenAPI URL, proto repo link, etc.)
`schema`	No	Parsed schema snapshot as JSON — set by the contract parser (M4)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Apr 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool persists data and returns a contract_id, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a write operation (implied but not stated), what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, error conditions, or rate limits. For a tool that appears to create records with 6 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 is perfectly concise - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose and the key output value. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the main action and follows with the practical consequence (returns contract_id).

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 tool's apparent complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but doesn't cover error conditions, side effects, or how the persisted contract integrates with the broader system. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally say more about the return value format beyond just 'contract_id'.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does all the heavy lifting, though the description could have provided context about how parameters relate to each other or usage patterns.

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 clearly states the specific action ('persist'), the resource ('service contract'), and the destination ('to the code graph'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the return value (contract_id) and referencing bind_contract, which is a sibling tool. This provides clear differentiation from other tools like get_contracts or analyze_codebase.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context by stating this is for persisting service contracts and mentions the return value is used with bind_contract, giving implicit guidance on when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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