Skip to main content
Glama

Spala Public MCP

by ai.spala

Get Project MCP Manifest

project_get_mcp_manifest
DestructiveIdempotent

AUTH REQUIRED; IDEMPOTENT PROJECT CONNECTION WRITE. Prepares one accessible project and returns its exact platform-provided project MCP manifest URL, MCP URL, and client-specific workspace binding plan. Accepts one installer client (codex, roo, claude-code, cursor, a2a); when omitted, returns a client-selection response without executable arguments.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clientNoTarget MCP client for @spala-ai/mcp-install. Omit to receive client_selection_required without an executable mutation plan.
projectIdNoExact Spala project ID. Mutually exclusive with subdomain.
subdomainNoExact project subdomain returned by the Spala projects API. Mutually exclusive with projectId.
organizationIdNoOptional organization ID returned for the signed-in account.
bootstrapChallengeNoS256 challenge returned by project prepare. The verifier remains only in the local credential store.
bootstrapRequestIdNoNon-secret local request ID returned by project prepare. Claude Code only.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
authNo
nameYes
ruleNo
mcpUrlYes
handoffYes
projectYes
bootstrapYes
nextStepsNo
transportYes
serverNameYes
installPlanYes
manifestUrlYes
schemaVersionYes
intentBoundaryNo

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds auth requirement and idempotency, and clarifies that omitting client returns a non-executable response. But it does not explain what the 'write' modifies or what destructive side effects might occur, leaving destructiveHint ambiguous.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key qualifiers ('AUTH REQUIRED; IDEMPOTENT PROJECT CONNECTION WRITE'), and no redundant or filler content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the rich schema (oneOf, 6 params, output schema), the description covers essential aspects: auth, idempotency, write nature, client selection, and return content. It doesn't explain selector exclusivity or bootstrap params, but those are fully documented in the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the client omission behavior already present in the schema and provides no additional semantic detail beyond that.

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 a specific verb ('prepares and returns') and resource ('project MCP manifest URL, MCP URL, and client-specific workspace binding plan'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like project_get_public_context by focusing on MCP manifest retrieval and installer client behavior, including the omitted-client fallback.

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?

Provides clear context: auth required, idempotent write, accepts one installer client, and explains omitted-client behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

All Spala Public 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but project_connect and project_select are essentially aliases, which introduces ambiguity. Additionally, spala_help and docs_search could overlap, but they are differentiated by scope.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming mostly follows a <domain>_<verb> pattern, with some exceptions like spala_help (no verb) and the duplicate project_select. Overall, the pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

16 tools is well-scoped for a public platform that handles accounts, organizations, projects, addons, templates, and documentation. Each tool earns its place without being excessive.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows like creating and connecting projects are covered, but there are notable gaps: no tools for updating or deleting accounts, organizations, or projects. Also, addons and templates are only listable, missing management operations.

Resources