Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RECLUSE Spider MCP Server

RECLUSE Spider MCP Server

by vinsenzo83
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

spider_checklist

Get a dimension-specific comprehensive checklist that enforces evidence-based validation and integrates session empirical findings on privilege escalation, order, cost, and events.

Instructions

차원별 전수 체크리스트(증거 없이 PASS 금지)를 반환. 파일 부재 시 내장 체크리스트 + 세션 실증 그물코(권한상승·순서·비용·이벤트) 병합.

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": "spider_checklist"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dimensionNo인증/데이터/단위/끊긴고리/권한경계/폴백/런타임/순서/비용/이벤트 등

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, description provides behavioral context: fallback to built-in checklist when file is missing, and merging with session verification data (privilege escalation, order, cost, events). However, it does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or whether the tool is read-only.

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 single sentence conveys the tool's purpose and key behavior efficiently, though it is somewhat dense and could benefit from clearer structure or bullet points for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and one optional parameter, the description explains the output nature (checklist with evidence) and fallback logic. However, it does not clarify that the dimension parameter is optional or what happens when omitted, leaving some ambiguity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% but description adds enumeration of dimension values (인증/데이터/단위/끊긴고리/권한경계/폴백/런타임/순서/비용/이벤트 등) that are not present in the schema, enhancing parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states it returns a per-dimension full checklist requiring evidence, and merges built-in checklist with session verification meshes. It is specific about the resource and verb, and distinguishes from sibling tools like spider_plan or spider_classify_tier by focusing on checklist generation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as spider_plan or spider_signals. Usage is only implied from the description, with no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.

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