Boosthis

Get Integration Kit

boosthis_get_integration_kit

Read-only

A Boosthis kit for THIS project — no upload; the single-use address needs no key, include_files no shell. Withheld reply? Same kit at GET https://www.boosthis.com/api/kit/ (project key as bearer). Runtimes: 'rn' (React Native/Expo, default), 'web' (browser), 'node' (Express), 'python', 'java', 'go', 'php' (Laravel), 'dotnet' (ASP.NET), 'ruby', 'flutter', 'swift' (iOS), 'kotlin' (Android), 'rust', 'elixir' (Phoenix), or 'edge' (Workers/Deno). The reply is compact: file_list (path + sha256), version, kit_download_once_url — a single-use address for the files (install_command adds typed commands). include_guide adds the guide; include_files (with files_page) sends files[] by value. One kit per runtime, same key. Writing the files is not the install: the kit is wired in, reporting switched on, and the app confirmed checked in.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`runtime`	No	Which runtime kit to deliver, matched to the project you are in. Defaults to 'rn' (React Native) when omitted. Boosthis names every runtime a project spans at https://www.boosthis.com/scan.
`files_page`	No	Which page of files[] to send when include_files is true. Defaults to 1; keep calling with the next page while the reply carries files_next_page.
`project_code`	No	The 8-character project code from this description's lead — not the project name, which two projects can share. Required when the account holds several projects.
`include_files`	No	Send every kit file by value instead of the compact manifest. Needed only when a shell command cannot be run — the files then arrive a page at a time. The largest reply this tool produces, so the guide is added only if include_guide asks too.
`include_guide`	No	Add the full written install guide to the reply. Left out by default: it is most of the reply's size and hosts withhold replies that large. The kit address above serves it too.
`install_command`	No	Adds the typed download commands to the reply.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: no upload, single-use no-key URLs, one kit per runtime, reply-wthholding with size tradeoffs, and the distinction between writing files and completing installation. This is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent predict side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and front-loads key constraints, but it is written as a run-on block with abbreviated phrases like 'include_files no shell' and 'Withheld reply?', which makes parsing harder than necessary. The long runtime list also duplicates information already present in the schema enum.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description responsibly enumerates the compact reply fields, the fallback endpoint, and parameter effects. The schema fills in project_code requirements. Slightly ambiguous phrases like 'kit for THIS project' and 'same key' leave some project-identity context to inference, preventing a 5.

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% and individual parameter descriptions are already detailed, so the baseline applies. The description adds useful context like runtime labels and the no-shell/withheld-reply behavior, but does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 states it delivers a Boosthis integration kit for the current project and selected runtime, and clarifies it is not an upload. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling get_removal_kit, but 'Integration Kit' plus the runtime and delivery details make the resource and action clear enough.

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?

The intended use is implied: call this when you need the integration kit for the current project and a given runtime. It provides a fallback if the reply is withheld and gives conditions for include_files, but it never names alternatives such as verify_kit_install or says when not to use this tool.

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

All Boosthis 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct concern—alerts, budgets, jobs, promises, rules, crash risk, install/removal—and the descriptions are detailed enough to separate them. A few pairs, like verify_kit/verify_kit_install and recent_samples/session_summary, could be misselected without close reading, but they are not functionally identical.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the boosthis_ prefix and use snake_case, which creates a recognizable namespace. However, the second part mixes noun-only names (alerts, budgets, jobs, snapshot, trend), verb-based names (get_rule, remember_promise, verify_kit), and one sentence-style name (what_should_i_look_at_next), so there is no consistent verb_noun convention.

Tool Count3/5

At 24 tools, this sits squarely in the borderline-heavy range for an MCP server. Each tool does have a distinct role, but the surface feels large, especially with several overlapping read-only diagnostics that could potentially be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the main observability lifecycle well: install, verify, monitor, diagnose, check trends, and record promises. Minor gaps exist—like no way to mutate alert states or delete promises through the MCP—but these appear intentional and are documented as dashboard-side actions.

Resources

Need Help?