BotKelp

Get scaffold template

get_scaffold_template

Requests a build for the given component ids, backed by a private GitHub repo BotKelp owns and manages itself under its own org — never your account. Returns the repo's location and a short-lived, single-repo-scoped clone credential; clone it yourself, BotKelp never touches wherever you copy it to. Repeat requests for the same component combination reuse the same repo at no extra GitHub-side cost. Requires an BotKelp account key with sufficient credit — there is no free/local mode for this tool (see generate_scaffold for that). See check_component_updates to find out when a newer combination is available.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`botKelpKey`	Yes	BotKelp account key (starts with "bk_live_"). Required.
`components`	Yes	Component ids to include, e.g. ["nextjs-base", "tailwind", "supabase-client"].
`projectName`	No	Name used in package.json and templates.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers ownership (BotKelp's repo, never the user's account), return value (repo location + short-lived single-repo-scoped credential), side effects (clone it yourself, BotKelp never touches the copy), cost implications (no extra GitHub-side cost for repeats), and auth/credit requirements. This is comprehensive behavior disclosure.

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?

Four sentences each earn their place: purpose, return credential and scope, reuse behavior, and critical usage exclusions. The main verb and resource are front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return value semantics, credentials, cost model, alternatives, and update checking. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, notably the credit requirement for botKelpKey and the concept of a 'component combination' that makes the array semantics more concrete. projectName is not elaborated on, but the schema already explains it clearly.

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 states a specific verb ('Requests a build') and a specific resource (component ids backed by a private GitHub repo), and clearly differentiates this tool from generate_scaffold by cost model and from check_component_updates by purpose. An agent can understand exactly what the tool does and how it differs from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when NOT to use this tool ('there is no free/local mode for this tool (see generate_scaffold for that)') and points to check_component_updates for timing decisions. It also clarifies repeat requests reuse the same repo, giving the agent a clear decision rule for repeated use.

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

All BotKelp tools Inspect

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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The nine tools split into clear functional clusters: registry discovery/update checks, project/repo management, and scaffold generation/delivery/verification. The three scaffold-delivery tools (generate_scaffold, get_scaffold_template, buy_scaffold_template) share a similar purpose, but their descriptions clearly separate inline files, account-backed private repos, and paid wallet-based access.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern: apply_changes_to_repo, check_component_updates, create_project, generate_scaffold, get_scaffold_template, and so on. There are no camelCase or vague imperative names, so an agent can predict the action-object relationship across the whole server.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is well within the ideal range, and each tool addresses a distinct part of the workflow: discovering components, generating and verifying scaffolds, obtaining managed templates, and managing linked repositories. No tool feels redundant or so out of place that the count becomes inappropriate.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is covered: search components, check updates, generate and verify scaffolds, request a managed template, and apply changes to a linked repo via pull request. Minor lifecycle gaps remain, such as no way to delete or update a registered project, but agents can complete the main intended tasks.

Resources

Need Help?