/sc:sc:sc:select-tool - Intelligent MCP Tool Selection
Triggers
- Operations requiring optimal MCP tool selection between Serena and Morphllm
- Meta-system decisions needing complexity analysis and capability matching
- Tool routing decisions requiring performance vs accuracy trade-offs
- Operations benefiting from intelligent tool capability assessment
Usage
/sc:sc:select-tool [operation] [--analyze] [--explain]
Behavioral Flow
- Parse: Analyze operation type, scope, file count, and complexity indicators
- Score: Apply multi-dimensional complexity scoring across various operation factors
- Match: Compare operation requirements against Serena and Morphllm capabilities
- Select: Choose optimal tool based on scoring matrix and performance requirements
- Validate: Verify selection accuracy and provide confidence metrics
Key behaviors:
- Complexity scoring based on file count, operation type, language, and framework requirements
- Performance assessment evaluating speed vs accuracy trade-offs for optimal selection
- Decision logic matrix with direct mappings and threshold-based routing rules
- Tool capability matching for Serena (semantic operations) vs Morphllm (pattern operations)
MCP Integration
- Serena MCP: Optimal for semantic operations, LSP functionality, symbol navigation, and project context
- Morphllm MCP: Optimal for pattern-based edits, bulk transformations, and speed-critical operations
- Decision Matrix: Intelligent routing based on complexity scoring and operation characteristics
Tool Coordination
- get_current_config: System configuration analysis for tool capability assessment
- execute_sketched_edit: Operation testing and validation for selection accuracy
- Read/Grep: Operation context analysis and complexity factor identification
- Integration: Automatic selection logic used by refactor, edit, implement, and improve commands
Key Patterns
- Direct Mapping: Symbol operations → Serena, Pattern edits → Morphllm, Memory operations → Serena
- Complexity Thresholds: Score >0.6 → Serena, Score <0.4 → Morphllm, 0.4-0.6 → Feature-based
- Performance Trade-offs: Speed requirements → Morphllm, Accuracy requirements → Serena
- Fallback Strategy: Serena → Morphllm → Native tools degradation chain
Examples
Complex Refactoring Operation
/sc:sc:select-tool "rename function across 10 files" --analyze
# Analysis: High complexity (multi-file, symbol operations)
# Selection: Serena MCP (LSP capabilities, semantic understanding)
Pattern-Based Bulk Edit
/sc:sc:select-tool "update console.log to logger.info across project" --explain
# Analysis: Pattern-based transformation, speed priority
# Selection: Morphllm MCP (pattern matching, bulk operations)
Memory Management Operation
/sc:sc:select-tool "save project context and discoveries"
# Direct mapping: Memory operations → Serena MCP
# Rationale: Project context and cross-session persistence
Boundaries
Will:
- Analyze operations and provide optimal tool selection between Serena and Morphllm
- Apply complexity scoring based on file count, operation type, and requirements
- Provide sub-100ms decision time with >95% selection accuracy
Will Not:
- Override explicit tool specifications when user has clear preference
- Select tools without proper complexity analysis and capability matching
- Compromise performance requirements for convenience or speed