Skip to main content
Glama

Conducted MCP

by io.github.Mostov82

Validate a methodology artifact

validate_artifact

Strictly check whether a Conducted Development artifact's text satisfies the methodology's required structure. Supply the artifact's type and its full text (the server never reads files). Returns { valid, missing, warnings }: missing lists required sections that are absent, empty, or contain only unmodified template placeholder text (blocking); warnings lists sections that are present but look thin (advisory, non-blocking). valid is true iff missing is empty.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesThe full markdown text of the artifact to validate.
artifact_typeYesWhich artifact to validate.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description fully handles disclosure. Explains return structure (valid, missing, warnings) and behavior: missing is blocking, warnings advisory, server never reads files. Could mention sync/async or performance.

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?

Compact yet thorough. Sentences are front-loaded with primary action, followed by usage note, then detailed return format. No unnecessary words.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, description fully explains tool's purpose, input, return values, and behavioral semantics (blocking vs warning). No gaps.

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?

Schema covers parameters at 100%, but description adds context: 'full text' and 'server never reads files', clarifying input requirements and file-handling behavior.

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?

Specific verb 'check' and resource 'artifact's text'. Clearly states it validates Conducted Development artifacts against methodology structure. Distinct from sibling tools like evaluate_gate or kickoff_plan.

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?

Explains how to use: supply artifact_type and full text. Implicitly differentiates from siblings but does not explicitly compare or state when not to use.

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

All Conducted MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool addresses a distinct aspect of the methodology: decision logging, gate evaluation, kickoff planning and questions, procedure retrieval, standup scheduling, and artifact validation. No two tools have overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case but mix verb_noun (evaluate_gate, validate_artifact) with noun_phrase patterns (kickoff_plan, next_procedure, standup_due). The pattern is not fully consistent, though each name is still readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the server covers the key lifecycle points of the Conducted Development methodology without being too sparse or bloated. Each tool serves a clear purpose within this scope.

Completeness4/5

The tools cover decision logging, gate checks, kickoff, procedure guidance, standup triggers, and validation. Missing an explicit tool for session execution, but next_procedure provides steps, mitigating the gap.

Resources