Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LLV Helix Framework

LLV Helix Framework

by suhitanantula
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

iterate_loop

Iterate a named loop by providing input, with an option to apply a rhythm pattern for structured creative progress.

Instructions

Execute one iteration of a loop with rhythm

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": {
      "loop_name": "<loop_name>",
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "iterate_loop"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
loop_nameYesName of the loop to iterate
inputYesInput for this iteration
apply_rhythmNoApply the loop's rhythm pattern

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; the description only hints at a rhythm concept without explaining behavior (e.g., side effects, state changes, idempotency). Does not disclose what 'rhythm' entails.

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?

A single sentence of 7 words is concise but lacks structure or elaboration. It conveys the core purpose but omits detail about rhythm, which is central to the tool's function.

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?

The description is minimal for a tool with three parameters and no output schema. It fails to explain the rhythm concept, iteration behavior, or how it relates to sibling tools like compose_rhythm or pulse_vibe.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 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 'Execute one iteration of a loop with rhythm' clearly states the action (execute) and the resource (one iteration of a loop). It distinguishes from siblings like create_loop, but lacks explicit scope or alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pulse_vibe or create_loop. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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