Skip to main content
Glama
zheng-qinghe

qhrisk-mcp

by zheng-qinghe

Server Configuration

Describes the environment variables required to run the server.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Instructions

Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.

This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.

Capabilities

Features and capabilities supported by this server

Protocol revision2025-11-25

CapabilityDetails
tools
{}

Tools

Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions

NameDescription
qhrisk_plan_checkB

计划自检:目标判据是否写清、每个环节是否都回答了「它服务于谁」和「去掉它会怎样」。没通过自检的计划,判出来的结论不可信。

qhrisk_simplifyC

核心工具:追溯每个环节的必要性,产出精简方案 —— 哪些环节追溯不到目标(无用功)、哪些去掉确实没差别、哪些可以换成更轻的做法、哪些是真正必需的最短链条。判据只有一条:它连不连得到目标。成本只用来排序。

qhrisk_patterns_showC

展示无用功模式库:每类冗余环节长什么样、为什么它通常是无用功、以及一个可以当场问出口的自检问题

qhrisk_ledger_showC

查看判定台账:每个环节被留下、删掉还是简化了,以及回看情况。

qhrisk_ledger_checkC

台账对账:每条判定是否记着「它解决什么问题」和「去掉会怎样」。

qhrisk_reviewC

回看一个环节:删掉/简化的填 stood(站住了)或 broke(出问题了);保留的填 used(起过作用)或 unused(一次没用上)。

qhrisk_mistakesD

两种错法:虚删(判无用功删掉、后来发现它其实有用)与虚留(判必需保留、后来一次没用上)。后者是最沉默的错误 —— 没有任何机制会提醒你「你保留的这件事从没起过作用」。

qhrisk_recheckB

复核:拿当前计划重算一遍,点名哪些判定翻转了 —— 改一个「它服务于谁」,可能让下游三个环节从必需变成无用功。

Prompts

Interactive templates invoked by user choice

NameDescription

No prompts

Resources

Contextual data attached and managed by the client

NameDescription

No resources

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Scored across 8 tools

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool maps to a distinct step: plan self-check, simplification, pattern reference, ledger viewing/validation, outcome review, error taxonomy, and recheck. The only mild ambiguity is between qhrisk_plan_check and qhrisk_simplify, and between qhrisk_patterns_show and qhrisk_mistakes, but their descriptions are enough to separate them.

Naming Consistency3/5

The qhrisk_ prefix and lowercase snake_case are consistent, but the verb/noun ordering is not: plan_check, patterns_show, and ledger_* follow object_verb, while simplify, review, and recheck are bare verbs and mistakes is a bare noun. This is readable but not a uniform pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is well-scoped for the stated workflow of plan simplification, ledger reconciliation, and outcome review. Each tool appears to serve a real stage in the process rather than padding the surface.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core loop: check the plan, simplify it, inspect and validate the ledger, review outcomes, and recompute flipped judgments. Minor gaps exist around explicit plan/ledger editing, but the main workflow has no hard dead ends.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues