Skip to main content
Glama
tosin2013

mcp-adr-analysis-server

by tosin2013
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_architectural_context

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve architectural context for specific files or the entire project. Automatically set up ADR infrastructure if missing and provide outcome-focused workflows for project success.

Instructions

Get detailed architectural context for specific files or the entire project, automatically sets up ADR infrastructure if missing, and provides outcome-focused workflow for project success

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathNoSpecific file path to analyze (optional, analyzes entire project if not provided)
includeComplianceNoInclude compliance checks in the analysis

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  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. First observed

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotation Contradiction: annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, meaning the tool should not modify state. The description explicitly states it "automatically sets up ADR infrastructure if missing," which implies creating or modifying files/state. This is a direct contradiction and seriously misleads the agent. No additional behavioral context is given to resolve this.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the main retrieval purpose, but the trailing phrase "provides outcome-focused workflow for project success" is vague filler that does not earn its place. The second behavior about ADR infrastructure setup is packed awkwardly into the same sentence, making the overall structure muddied despite being brief.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the agent can expect from this tool. It does not describe return values, what "outcome-focused workflow" concretely delivers, or what happens when ADR infrastructure is missing. The contradiction with readOnlyHint further damages completeness, leaving the agent unable to safely predict side effects or output shape.

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 schema already fully documents filePath and includeCompliance. The description adds only incidental alignment with these parameters ("specific files or the entire project", "compliance checks") but does not provide any deeper semantic value beyond the schema.

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 core action is clear: "Get detailed architectural context for specific files or the entire project." This names a specific resource and scope. However, the description then adds unrelated-sounding behaviors (ADR setup and "outcome-focused workflow"), and it does not differentiate the tool from siblings like get_adr_context or analyze_project_ecosystem.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus the many siblings, such as get_adr_context, analyze_project_ecosystem, or get_workflow_guidance. The phrase "automatically sets up ADR infrastructure if missing" hints at a conditional scenario, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative recommendation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tosin2013/mcp-adr-analysis-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server