Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Anchor Terminal

by com.anchorterminal
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

The tools one job needs

scope_tools
Read-onlyIdempotent

Which of an MCP server's tools a job needs, their cost in context against the whole list, and the config that loads only those (Claude API mcp_toolset, OpenAI allowed_tools, Claude Code permissions). Give slug for a listing whose list we've read, or tools, your own tools/list answer. Picked by words; destructive tools are held unless the job asks. Nothing is called or kept.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "job": "<job>"
    },
    "name": "scope_tools"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobYesWhat you're about to do: 'send an email', 'read the logs of a service'
slugNoA listing, e.g. railway-mcp-server
toolsNoYour client's tools/list answer for the server
budgetNoMost tokens the picked definitions may cost
serverNoThe server's name in your client, for the config

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: 'Nothing is called or kept' clarifies zero side effects and no persistence, and the destructive-tool suppression rule is a behavioral trait not present in annotations.

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?

It is dense but front-loaded, leading with the selection purpose and cost, then inputs, then guardrails. Some phrasing is elliptical and takes a re-read, but each sentence contributes.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description should ideally sketch the returned shape (the tool subset, the cost figures, and the config format). It gestures at these outputs but never states what an agent will actually receive, leaving the return contract underspecified.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining the two source options and their mutual exclusivity ('slug for a listing... or tools, your own tools/list answer'), and 'cost in context' hints at what budget constrains, which the schema alone leaves implicit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific object (a subset of an MCP server's tools for a given job) and the two outputs (context-cost comparison and ready-to-use config snippets). It distinguishes itself from listing/search siblings by being a selection-and-budgeting tool, though the opening is a noun phrase rather than a clean verb, slightly blurring the action.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives concrete input guidance: supply a slug for a listing already read, or a tools array from your own tools/list. It also states a policy (destructive tools held unless the job asks). But it never contrasts itself with siblings like search_tools, compare_tools, or list_capabilities, which all sound adjacent to scoping.

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

All Anchor Terminal toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources