mcp-adr-analysis-server

validate_all_adrs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate every ADR in a project against live infrastructure to confirm decisions match actual deployed reality.

Instructions

Validate all ADRs in a directory against actual infrastructure reality

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "validate_all_adrs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectPath`	No	Path to the project directory	.
`adrDirectory`	No	Directory containing ADR files	docs/adrs
`minConfidence`	No	Minimum research confidence for validation (0-1)
`includeEnvironmentCheck`	No	Include live environment verification in validation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.0Jan 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the context that validation checks against 'actual infrastructure reality', which hints at live-environment comparison, but it does not go beyond that into side effects, permissions, or failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, scope, and comparison target.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent batch validation tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose adequately. It could have mentioned what a validation result looks like, but the absence of that is a minor gap given the strong annotations and schema coverage.

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%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters with defaults and descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Validate'), a resource ('all ADRs in a directory'), and the criterion ('against actual infrastructure reality'). This clearly distinguishes the bulk operation from sibling 'validate_adr', which validates a single ADR.

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 implies when to use the tool by saying 'all ADRs', and the sibling context offers a comparison to singular 'validate_adr'. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server