Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Knowledge Master

Knowledge Master

by subzone
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

check_conventions

Check whether a repository or directory adheres to coding conventions for naming, structure, and patterns. Receive pass/fail results for each convention to enforce code standards.

Instructions

Check if a repo or path follows the detected coding conventions (naming, structure, patterns). Returns pass/fail for each convention.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "check_conventions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath to repo or directory to check

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'Returns pass/fail for each convention', omitting critical behavioral traits like destructiveness, authentication needs, or rate limits. Lacks depth for a mutation-free check.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. Efficient but extremely minimal; could benefit from slight restructuring or additional context without becoming verbose.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return format. However, missing details about what 'conventions' are detected or how they are determined, but acceptable for basic usage.

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% (one parameter with description). Description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, which already explains 'path' as a directory/repo path. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Check' and resource 'repo or path follows detected coding conventions'. Differentiates from siblings like index_repo (indexing) and search (general search) by specific convention-checking 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Description implies use for checking conventions but does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context.

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