Skip to main content
Glama

sparda_prove

Compile source behavior, discharge static proof obligations, and return a deterministic verdict with coverage. Optionally filter findings by route and compare against a saved baseline to detect regressions.

Instructions

Prove this app is safe to deploy — NOW, before you commit. Compiles the current source to its behavior graph and discharges the static proof obligations (unguarded mutation, non-atomic aggregate write, unvalidated constrained write). If a baseline was saved (sparda apocalypse --save-baseline), it ALSO diffs against it: any finding flagged regression:true means your edit removed a guard, dropped a route, or grew the blast radius vs the last proven state — the check an LLM cannot do to itself by re-reading code. Returns a deterministic verdict (PROVEN / PARTIAL / SURFACE / NO_PROOF / RISKY / NOT_PROVEN), the coverage % it resolved, and every finding with its route. The verdict is the exact word sparda apocalypse and the badge emit; it never over-claims (a low-coverage clean app reads SURFACE/PARTIAL, never a bare PROVEN). Pass route (e.g. "DELETE /orders") to focus the finding list on the route you just edited — the verdict still reflects the whole app.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
routeNoOptional. Substring of a route label (method + path, e.g. "POST /invoices") to filter the findings to the route you just edited. Omit to see the whole app.
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details that the tool compiles source, discharges proof obligations, diffs against a baseline if saved, flags regressions, returns a deterministic verdict, and explains how verdicts never over-claim. This is comprehensive and transparent.

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 description is somewhat long but well-structured, starting with the core purpose. Every sentence provides useful information, though some could be slightly more concise. It is front-loaded with the key action and timing.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complexity of the tool and lack of output schema, the description covers the return value (verdict, coverage, findings) and explains the diff behavior. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand what the tool does and what results to expect.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for its single optional parameter (route). The description adds value by explaining that route filters findings to the edited route while the verdict reflects the whole app, which goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 proves app safety for deployment by compiling source to behavior graph and discharging proof obligations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sparda_confirm or sparda_get_context, which likely have different purposes. The verb 'Prove' and resource 'app safety' are specific and actionable.

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 says to use it before committing ('NOW, before you commit'), providing clear context. It also explains the optional route parameter for focusing on a specific route. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, leaving some gap in exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/zyx77550/sparda'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server