Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentCanon MCP

AgentCanon MCP

by touhi13
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_rules

Retrieves all canonical rules and metadata from .agentcanon/rules.yaml so you can inspect the project's source-of-truth rule set.

Instructions

Lists all canonical rules and metadata from .agentcanon/rules.yaml.

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": "list_rules"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectRootNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read but says nothing about what happens if rules.yaml is missing, whether results are paginated, ordering, or what 'metadata' includes.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and source file front-loaded. It is appropriately short for a simple list tool, though there is little structure to speak of.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented parameter, the description should clarify return shape and the meaning of projectRoot. It does neither, so an agent has meaningful gaps before calling it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter projectRoot is undocumented in both the schema (0% coverage) and the description, so an agent cannot tell whether it defaults to cwd, whether it must be absolute, or what it scopes. The description mentions a file path but never connects it to the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('all canonical rules and metadata') plus the source file (.agentcanon/rules.yaml), so an agent can tell this is a read of the rule set. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like validate_rules or inspect_project, leaving some ambiguity about overlap.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as inspect_project or validate_rules. The read-only listing intent is only implied by the verb 'Lists'.

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