Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
code-explorer

code-explorer

by vmikhailov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

list_semantic_gates

Lists built-in and workspace-specific Semantic Invariant Gates with FOIM coordinates and debt status, letting you filter by category or platform to inspect architectural constraints.

Instructions

List all available Semantic Invariant Gates (both built-in and workspace-specific) with FOIM coordinates and debt status.

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_semantic_gates"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
categoryNoOptional category filter: 'Architectural' or 'Platform'.
platformNoOptional platform filter: e.g. 'agnostic', 'dotnet', 'typescript', 'python', 'go', 'java'.
workspacePathNoOptional workspace root path.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.80.5

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that results include FOIM coordinates and debt status, which hints at read-only enumeration of what is returned, but it says nothing about permissions, result size, or ordering.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical scope qualifier earns its place, though 'FOIM coordinates' introduces unexplained jargon.

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?

With three optional filters and no output schema, the description conveys the return contents in general terms only. 'FOIM coordinates' is never defined, and there is no indication of result volume or how debt status is represented, leaving some interpretive gaps.

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 100%, so all three optional filters (category, platform, workspacePath) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or interpretation beyond that, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('Semantic Invariant Gates'), with scope clarified as both built-in and workspace-specific. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from check_semantic_gates, but the list-vs-check verb difference is reasonably clear.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus check_semantic_gates, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The parenthetical about built-in vs workspace-specific scope describes coverage but not usage conditions.

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