Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentCanon MCP

AgentCanon MCP

by touhi13
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

upsert_rule

Creates or updates a canonical rule in .agentcanon/rules.yaml with Zod schema validation, ensuring consistent rule definitions across your project.

Instructions

Creates or updates a canonical rule inside .agentcanon/rules.yaml with Zod schema validation.

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": {
      "rule": "<rule>"
    },
    "name": "upsert_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ruleYes
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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the target file and Zod validation, but does not explain overwrite/merge semantics for updates, whether existing rules are preserved or replaced, error behavior, or permission/file-system requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the operation, target file, and validation behavior.

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?

This is a mutation tool with a nested schema, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage. The description is far too thin for an agent to confidently construct the rule object or understand update semantics.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter meaning. The complex nested 'rule' object (id, targets, scope, category, priority, severity, enabled) and the 'projectRoot' parameter are entirely undocumented beyond their JSON schema structure.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb+resource: creates or updates a canonical rule in .agentcanon/rules.yaml with validation. It does not differentiate from siblings such as import_existing_rules or validate_rules, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description implies usage by saying 'creates or updates', but gives no guidance on when to choose this over import_existing_rules, list_rules, or validate_rules, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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