Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RECLUSE Spider MCP Server

RECLUSE Spider MCP Server

by vinsenzo83
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

spider_signals

Returns bug detection signals (live queries/grep) and fix principles, filterable by class, tier, or tag. Execute signals to collect evidence for contract verification.

Instructions

실증 버그 클래스의 탐지 신호(라이브 쿼리/grep)와 수정 원칙을 반환. klass/tier/tag로 필터. 계획 후 이 신호를 그대로 실행해 증거를 수집하라.

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_signals"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagNo스택 태그(postgres, stream, curriculum 등)
tierNo
klassNo버그 클래스 부분일치(권한경계/순서무결성/비용공격/이벤트계약/단위 등)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns detection signals and fix principles, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not detail output format, side effects, or prerequisites, limiting transparency.

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 two sentences in Korean, tightly packed with purpose and usage guidance. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers what it returns and when to use it, but omits output structure and behavioral details like idempotency or rate limits. Adequate for basic use but not fully complete.

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 67% (tag and klass have descriptions; tier lacks one). The description adds that parameters are filters, which aligns with schema. However, the missing description for tier enum values (king/mid/baby) is a gap that the description does not fill.

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 clearly states the tool returns detection signals and fix principles for empirical bug classes, with filtering by klass/tier/tag. It distinguishes from siblings like spider_plan (planning) and spider_pull_corpus (pulling corpus) by emphasizing execution after planning.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'after planning, execute these signals as-is to collect evidence,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It also mentions filtering parameters. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or name alternatives among siblings.

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