Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
s1000d-brex-mcp

s1000d-brex-mcp

by shuji-bonji
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

lookup_value

Explains what an S1000D BREX element or attribute value means, lists allowed values, and checks whether a given value is permitted.

Instructions

Explain what a value of an element or attribute means in a BREX, or list the allowed values. Pass "target" as an attribute name (e.g. "securityClassification"), an element name, or an XPath fragment; optionally "value" to check one value. Returns the matching rules with allowed values and their meanings, and whether the value is allowed.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brexNoWhich BREX to use: a file path to a BREX data module (.xml), or a DMC (e.g. "KENBAIKI-A-00-00-00-00A-022A-D", "DMC-" prefix optional) searched in csdbDirs / S1000D_CSDB_DIR / S1000D_SPEC_DIR. Omit to use the S1000D default BREX found under S1000D_SPEC_DIR.
valueNoThe value to check against the allowed values (optional).
targetYesAttribute name ("infoCode", "@infoCode"), element name ("language"), or XPath fragment to match against objectPath.
contextNoSchema file name (e.g. "descript") to pick context-specific rules in addition to common ones.
csdbDirsNoExtra folders to search for data modules and BREX by DMC (in addition to S1000D_CSDB_DIR and S1000D_SPEC_DIR).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the return content: matching rules, allowed values, meanings, and whether a value is allowed. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error conditions, or BREX source fallback behavior beyond what the schema already says.

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 front-loaded and efficient, moving from the core purpose to invocation details and return behavior. It is dense but not bloated; minor tightening is possible but not necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains what is returned. The schema fully covers the five parameters, including BREX source resolution. The main missing piece is explicit routing guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds examples for target and value, but those forms are also covered by the schema descriptions, and the brex, context, and csdbDirs parameters are not elaborated in the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: explain what an element/attribute value means in a BREX, or list allowed values. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as check_against_brex, which also concerns allowed values and validation.

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?

It explains how to invoke the tool with target and optional value, and gives examples such as "securityClassification". However, it does not state when to use this instead of check_against_brex or explain_brex, so the usage boundary is only implied.

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