SassyMCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

sassy_persona_practices

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve engineering standards for security, code quality, and architecture before writing or reviewing code. Ensures compliance with project-specific guidelines and MCP GitHub tool patterns.

Instructions

Read-only. Returns the engineering standards document: security defaults applied to every project (input validation, output escaping, parameterized queries, CSRF, auth best practices, security headers, rate limiting, upload validation, secrets handling, dependency audits, TLS, structured logging), code quality rules (types, tests, comments explain why, error handling), architecture patterns (env config, health checks, graceful shutdown, idempotency, circuit breakers, feature flags), platform-specific guidelines (Cloudflare, Rust, Python, TypeScript, Go, Docker, Git), and MCP GitHub tool patterns (use sassy_gh_push_files rather than create_or_update_file for existing files). Takes no parameters, returns plain text. Use before writing or reviewing code to know the expected standards.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Read-only' (consistent) and 'returns plain text,' which discloses the return format beyond what annotations provide. It also summarizes the document's scope, giving behavioral context without contradicting any annotation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with 'Read-only. Returns the engineering standards document,' which is good. However, the exhaustive listing of security, code quality, architecture, and platform topics makes it long and somewhat dense. A shorter summary of the document's coverage would have been equally effective while remaining concise.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only document retrieval tool, the description covers what the tool returns, the return type (plain text), the content areas, and when to use it. Combined with the output schema, no essential context is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, and the description confirms 'Takes no parameters.' Per the 0-param baseline, no further parameter documentation is needed; the description fully satisfies the requirement.

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 the tool returns the engineering standards document and enumerates its major sections, making the resource and verb specific. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling persona tools such as sassy_persona_decisions or sassy_persona_full, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use before writing or reviewing code to know the expected standards.' It does not include exclusions or name alternatives, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance, but the context is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server