Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ArchScript MCP

ArchScript MCP

by schlummer13
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Architecture review

review
Read-only

Score and grade a document, reporting metadata coverage, coupling, and rule findings to validate architecture models and surface issues.

Instructions

Score, grade, metadata coverage, coupling and all rule findings of a document.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
documentNoDocument id (e.g. doc1), file name or project name. Omit for the frontmost document.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating what is computed, but with no output schema it does not describe the shape of the result, whether scoring is expensive, or how findings are structured.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is slightly telegraphic and grammatically loose ('Score, grade, metadata coverage... of a document'), but every word maps to a real output dimension.

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?

For a read-only, single-optional-parameter tool this is close to sufficient, and the metric list partially substitutes for the missing output schema. However, an agent still cannot anticipate the return structure or how findings are reported.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'document' parameter is fully described in the schema, including the omit-for-frontmost default. The description adds no additional meaning about accepted id formats or resolution behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific action set (scoring, grading, metadata coverage, coupling, rule findings) applied to a specific resource (a document), so an agent knows it produces an architecture assessment. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling 'validate', which could plausibly sound similar.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus 'validate' or 'get_document', nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The intended use case is only inferable from the list of computed metrics.

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