Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Claspine

by com.claspine
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Plan a Claspine integration

plan_integration
Read-onlyIdempotent

An exact, ordered plan for adding Claspine to this project: what the person must do first, then each step with the files and settings to change (current release pinned) and how to prove it worked. Call it after you know the stack, new or existing, and the person's decisions (Atlas or self-hosted, whose login, which features), and follow it step by step.

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": {
      "stack": "<stack>",
      "project": "<project>",
      "form": "<form>",
      "features": "<features>"
    },
    "name": "plan_integration"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formYesWhere Claspine runs: the person's choice.
loginNoSelf-hosted: keep the app's own login, or move sign-in to Claspine (default: claspine when sign-in is a feature).
stackYesThe backend.
projectYesnew: little or no code yet; existing: an app that already runs.
databaseNoSelf-hosted: where Claspine keeps its own tables (default postgres).
featuresYesWhat to add first.
current_versionNoOnly if the project already uses Claspine: its version now (grahmur.platform.version or the BOM version), for example 0.12.0. The plan then upgrades first.
uses_spring_securityNoSpring Boot: the project already uses Spring Security.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / current_version
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only if the project already uses Claspine: its version now (grahmur.platform.version or the BOM version), for example 0.12.0. The plan then upgrades first.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the plan is pinned to the current release, each step includes verification proof, and the output is meant to be executed in order — all beyond what the annotations say.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable and followed by the call precondition. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical decision list is slightly compressed but not wasteful.

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?

With 8 params at full schema coverage and no output schema, the description still characterizes the return value (ordered steps with files, settings, and proof of success) and the pinned-release behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or act on the result is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the key decision axes (stack, new/existing, form, login, features) but adds no syntax, defaults, or conditional logic beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and deliverable: an exact, ordered plan for adding Claspine, enumerating what the plan contains (first actions, per-step file/setting changes, verification). An agent can tell this produces a tailored plan rather than documentation (get_guide, get_recipe) or a check (check_code), though it never names a sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Gives a clear precondition and sequencing rule: call it after the stack, new-vs-existing status, and the person's decisions (Atlas vs self-hosted, login ownership, features) are known, then follow the plan step by step. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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

All Claspine 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