Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-adr-analysis-server

mcp-adr-analysis-server

by tosin2013
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

smart_score

Read-onlyIdempotent

Recalculate, sync, diagnose, optimize, and reset project health scores across multiple scoring components to maintain accurate and actionable project insights.

Instructions

Central coordination for project health scoring system - recalculate, sync, diagnose, optimize, and reset scores across all MCP tools

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": {
      "operation": "<operation>",
      "projectPath": "<projectPath>"
    },
    "name": "smart_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intentIdNoIntent ID to get score trends for (for get_intent_scores operation)
todoPathNoPath to TODO.md file (for sync_scores operation)TODO.md
componentNoScore component to reset (for reset_scores operation)all
operationYesSmart scoring operation to perform
componentsNoScore components to recalculate (for recalculate_scores operation)
forceUpdateNoForce update even if data is fresh
previewOnlyNoPreview changes without applying (for optimize_weights operation)
projectPathYesPath to project directory
analysisModeNoMethod for weight optimization (for optimize_weights operation)current_state
triggerToolsNoTools to trigger for fresh data (for sync_scores operation)
customWeightsNoCustom weight overrides (for optimize_weights operation)
updateSourcesNoTrigger source tool updates before recalculating
includeHistoryNoInclude score history analysis (for diagnose_scores operation)
preserveHistoryNoPreserve score history in backup (for reset_scores operation)
rebalanceWeightsNoRecalculate optimal scoring weights (for sync_scores operation)
checkDataFreshnessNoValidate data freshness across tools (for diagnose_scores operation)
suggestImprovementsNoProvide score improvement suggestions (for diagnose_scores operation)
recalculateAfterResetNoImmediately recalculate after reset (for reset_scores operation)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / triggerTools / items / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "manage_todo_json",
-  "smart_git_push",
-  "compare_adr_progress",
-  "analyze_content_security",
-  "validate_rules"
-]New value: +[
+  "smart_git_push",
+  "compare_adr_progress",
+  "analyze_content_security",
+  "validate_rules"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, but the description advertises operations such as recalculate, sync, optimize, and reset scores. Schema parameters like forceUpdate, updateSources, recalculateAfterReset, and customWeights further suggest state-changing behavior and side effects on other tools, directly contradicting the read-only annotation.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the central coordination purpose and enumerates the key operation categories. It is efficient, though it sacrifices operational clarity for brevity.

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?

With 18 parameters, seven operations, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is far too thin to guide correct invocation. It does not explain when each operation is appropriate, what side effects occur, how parameters interact, or what the tool returns.

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%, and each parameter includes an operation-specific description, so the schema already carries the semantic load. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond restating the coordinated scoring theme, which is acceptable given the schema 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 identifies a clear resource (project health scoring system) and lists the main actions: recalculate, sync, diagnose, optimize, and reset scores. It is broad and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but it conveys the overall purpose of the tool.

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 phrase 'Central coordination... across all MCP tools' implies that this tool should be used when orchestrating scoring-related operations. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives for individual scoring operations.

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