Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PowerSwarm

PowerSwarm

by willykeenan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

powerswarm_validate

Validate a PowerSwarm build request and check if its kill checks are committed, without running anything.

Instructions

Check a request (and optionally that its kill checks are committed in root) without running anything.

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": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "powerswarm_validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rootNo
requestYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that nothing is executed (a non-mutating, side-effect-free operation), but it says nothing about authentication, error reporting, or what a successful vs failed validation returns.

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 sentence with the core constraint ('without running anything') front-loaded and no padding. It loses a point only because the parenthetical jargon is dense and hard to parse.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, a nested request object, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits what a valid request looks like, what 'kill checks in root' means, and what the validation result contains.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It adds some meaning: 'root' is optional and relates to 'kill checks committed in root', but the required 'request' object's structure and contents are entirely unexplained.

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?

The description states a specific verb (check/validate) and resource (a request), and the phrase 'without running anything' implicitly contrasts it with powerswarm_run. However, it never names a sibling explicitly and the jargon 'kill checks committed in root' blurs what is actually being validated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Without running anything' hints that this is the dry-run alternative to powerswarm_run, which is implied usage guidance. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus powerswarm_spec or powerswarm_run, and no prerequisites are given.

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