Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Liminate Authoring MCP

Liminate Authoring MCP

by rmichaelthomas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

validate_agreement

Parse and semantically check a Liminate Agreement. Returns parse/semantic errors and per-rule deontic analysis.

Instructions

Parse and semantically check a Liminate Agreement. Returns parse/semantic errors and a per-rule deontic analysis (permit/forbid/require/define), annotating unbound evidence references separately from genuine errors.

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": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "validate_agreement"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the tool returns parse/semantic errors, deontic analysis, and annotates unbound evidence separately. This transparently describes behavior, though side effects and auth requirements are not mentioned.

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?

Description is extremely concise—two sentences—with no filler. Every word adds value, clearly conveying purpose and output.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (validation with detailed output), the description covers key aspects: parsing, semantic checking, return types. No output schema, but description explains output structure. Parameter explanation is weak, but overall complete for context.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Only one parameter 'source' (string) with 0% schema coverage. The description does not elaborate on what 'source' represents (e.g., URL, file, text), leaving its meaning ambiguous. The tool's purpose implies source is the agreement text, but explicit clarification is missing.

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 tool validates a Liminate Agreement by parsing and performing semantic checks, returning errors and deontic analysis. It distinguishes from sibling tools like draft_agreement (drafting) and test_agreement (testing).

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 description implies use for validation but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tool names offer context, but no direct exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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