Skip to main content
Glama

Boosthis

by com.boosthis

Which Kits

boosthis_which_kits
Read-only

Names which Boosthis kits this project needs, from manifest file names already visible in it - nothing is downloaded or executed. The inventory step before boosthis_get_integration_kit, which serves one named runtime per kit and never guesses. The answer names the kit each file implies, the surfaces already registered under this project key, and the files whose contents decide a runtime. With no arguments it returns the signal table.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesNoOptional. Manifest files visible in the project, each as {path, dependencies}.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / files / items / properties / dependencies / description
      Previous value: -"Names read out of that file, where its contents decide the kit. An empty list says it was read and names none; omitting it says the contents were not read."New value: +"Names read out of that file, where its contents decide the kit. An empty list means read and none found; omitting it means not read."
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / files / description
      Previous value: -"Optional. Manifest files visible in the project, each as {path, dependencies}. Dependency names matter only where a file's contents decide the kit, as a package.json does."New value: +"Optional. Manifest files visible in the project, each as {path, dependencies}."
    • changedInput schema / properties / files / items / properties / dependencies / description
      Previous value: -"Dependency or plugin names read out of that file, where its contents decide which kit it means. An empty list reads as a file that was read and names none, which is a Node service or a JVM server; leaving it out says the contents were not read."New value: +"Names read out of that file, where its contents decide the kit. An empty list says it was read and names none; omitting it says the contents were not read."
    • changedInput schema / properties / files / items / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"Project-relative path of the manifest file, such as apps/api/package.json."New value: +"Project-relative path, such as apps/api/package.json."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds important non-obvious behavior: 'nothing is downloaded or executed'. It also discloses the output signal table, the surfaces returned, and the fact that no arguments still returns the signal table.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. A few clauses are dense and could be clearer, but every sentence contributes useful information and there is no filler.

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?

For a read-only inventory tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what will be returned at a high level (signal table, kit names, registered surfaces, runtime-deciding files), though the exact signal table format is not specified.

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% and the schema already explains files as optional manifest objects with path and dependencies. The description adds useful meaning by highlighting that no arguments returns the signal table and that the files' contents decide a runtime, going slightly beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it 'Names which Boosthis kits this project needs' from visible manifest files. It clearly differentiates itself from boosthis_get_integration_kit by positioning itself as the inventory step, so an agent can distinguish the two without inspecting schemas.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'The inventory step before boosthis_get_integration_kit'. It also clarifies the alternative never guesses, implying this tool is the source of exact kit/runtime names. This is strong routing guidance.

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

All Boosthis 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource or workflow: alerts, budgets, crashes, traces, jobs, promises, kits, and rules. A few summary-style tools such as snapshot, session_summary, and what_should_i_look_at_next overlap in spirit, but their descriptions clarify the different aggregation levels and purposes.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the consistent boosthis_ snake_case prefix, making the family immediately recognizable and predictable. However, naming mixes noun-resource styles with verb-command styles, and a few names are question-like phrases such as boosthis_what_should_i_look_at_next and boosthis_which_kits.

Tool Count3/5

At 26 tools, this is on the heavy side and slightly past the 16-25 range where a large toolset starts to feel burdensome. The count is defensible because each tool maps to a distinct observability or kit-management concern, but agents will need to do significant selection work.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers a broad lifecycle: kit installation and verification, rules and code matching, performance snapshots and trends, crash risk, release checks, promises, alerts, and connection status. It is mostly read-only by design, so the lack of write operations beyond remember_promise is not a major gap, though alert and job management actions are intentionally absent.

Resources