Skip to main content
Glama
tosin2013

mcp-adr-analysis-server

by tosin2013
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

generate_adr_bootstrap

Generate validation and bootstrap scripts that check deployed code against Architectural Decision Records, ensuring compliance with documented architecture decisions.

Instructions

Generate bootstrap.sh and validate_bootstrap.sh scripts to ensure deployed code follows ADR requirements. CRITICAL: Before generating scripts, use WebFetch to query the base code repository (e.g., https://github.com/validatedpatterns/common for OpenShift) and authoritative pattern documentation (e.g., https://play.validatedpatterns.io/). Merge the base repository code into your project and have bootstrap.sh call the pattern's scripts rather than generating everything from scratch. This ensures compliance with validated deployment patterns.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
outputPathNoDirectory where to generate scripts.
scriptTypeNoWhich scripts to generateboth
projectPathNoPath to the project directory.
adrDirectoryNoDirectory where ADRs are storeddocs/adrs
includeTestsNoInclude test execution in bootstrap
customValidationsNoCustom validation commands to include
includeDeploymentNoInclude deployment steps in bootstrap

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.7.46
    • removedInput schema / properties / conversationContext
      Removed value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "description": "Rich context from the calling LLM about user goals and discussion history",
-  "properties": {
-    "budget": {
-      "description": "Budget or resource constraints (e.g., \"limited budget\", \"enterprise scale\")",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "constraints": {
-      "description": "Limitations, compliance requirements, or restrictions (e.g., [\"GDPR compliance\", \"budget under $50k\", \"minimal downtime\"])",
-      "items": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "focusAreas": {
-      "description": "Specific areas of concern or interest (e.g., [\"security\", \"performance\", \"maintainability\"])",
-      "items": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "humanRequest": {
-      "description": "Original human request text for context restoration and knowledge graph storage",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "previousContext": {
-      "description": "Relevant context from previous conversation (e.g., \"User mentioned concerns about database splitting\")",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "projectPhase": {
-      "description": "Current project phase (e.g., \"planning\", \"development\", \"migration\", \"production\")",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "requirements": {
-      "description": "Specific requirements or preferences mentioned",
-      "items": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "timeline": {
-      "description": "Timeline or urgency information (e.g., \"launch in 3 months\", \"urgent migration\")",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "userGoals": {
-      "description": "Primary objectives the user wants to achieve (e.g., [\"microservices migration\", \"improve security\"])",
-      "items": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "userRole": {
-      "description": "User's role or expertise level (e.g., \"senior architect\", \"developer\", \"project manager\")",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}
  2. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are all false, offering no safety hints. The description does not disclose side effects like file overwriting, permissions, or idempotency behavior. It mentions a merge workflow but that is an instruction to the agent, not the tool's own behavior, leaving the tool's actual side effects opaque.

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 moderately sized, front-loading the purpose and then adding a critical workflow instruction. The example URLs add specificity but could be trimmed; overall it is structured with a clear critical warning and is not overly verbose.

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?

The tool has 7 optional parameters well-documented in the schema, and no output schema. The description provides crucial context about merging base repository code, but does not cover behaviors like existing file handling, the relationship between scriptType and generated scripts, or how customValidations integrate. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, such as how parameters interact or any special constraints. It does not compensate for the schema's already adequate coverage.

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 generates bootstrap.sh and validate_bootstrap.sh scripts to ensure deployed code follows ADR requirements. The verb+resource is specific and distinguishes it from validation tools like validate_adr, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast.

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?

The description provides a critical prerequisite (use WebFetch to query the base repo and merge code) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear for the intended workflow but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative selection criteria.

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