Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
WBSO MCP Server

WBSO MCP Server

by rubenmaas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

analyze_wbso_relevance

Analyze code, commits, or work descriptions to assess WBSO relevance, ensuring accurate R&D time tracking.

Instructions

Analyze whether code, commits, or work description is relevant to the WBSO project.

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": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_wbso_relevance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
diffNoGit diff or code changes
contentYesThe content to analyze
files_changedNoList of file paths changed

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention whether the tool has side effects, what the output format is, or any prerequisites. This is especially important given sibling tools that log research or development, potentially implying write operations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though it is brief and could benefit from additional context.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool is under-specified. It does not explain what 'relevant' means, what the expected output is, or how to structure the input for different use cases. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple input parameters.

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 covers all three parameters (diff, content, files_changed) with 100% coverage, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds context about WBSO relevance but does not clarify which parameter corresponds to 'code', 'commits', or 'work description' beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 clearly states that the tool analyzes code, commits, or work description for relevance to the WBSO project, using a specific verb and resource. It is understandable but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_commit_wbso, which likely serves a similar purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as classify_work or check_commit_wbso. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts.

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