GitRanks Contribute

Report readiness

report_readiness

Idempotent

Saves how a repository builds, tests and lints, as you found it while working on it, for this contributor's later briefs on that repository (no one else sees it). Use it once you know the commands that work; a new report replaces the previous one. Answers saved: true.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "report_readiness"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	The repository, as owner/name; it must be one GitRanks recommends from
`notes`	No	Anything else worth knowing next time: services to start, slow or flaky tests, setup steps
`toolchain`	No	Runtimes and versions it needs, e.g. Node 22, pnpm 10
`lintCommand`	No	The command that lints it, e.g. pnpm lint
`testCommand`	No	The command that runs its tests, e.g. pnpm test
`buildCommand`	No	The command that builds it, e.g. pnpm install && pnpm build

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses upsert semantics (a new report replaces the old one), per-contributor visibility ('no one else sees it'), and the confirmation returned ('Answers saved: true'). This is consistent with idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and adds real context the annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The trailing 'Answers saved: true' is a terse return-value note that reads slightly like a machine artifact but still earns its place by telling the agent what to expect.

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?

A write tool with no output schema and six fully-described parameters; the description covers persistence scope, overwrite behavior, and the return signal. Nothing critical is missing, though the 'repo must be one GitRanks recommends' constraint is left entirely to the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented with examples. The description's phrasing ('builds, tests and lints', 'as you found it') loosely maps to the build/test/lint and notes fields but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema - baseline 3.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Saves') on a specific resource (how a repository builds, tests and lints) and scopes it to the contributor's own later briefs. This clearly separates it from proof/patch/lesson siblings, though it never names an alternative tool.

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?

'Use it once you know the commands that work' gives a clear trigger condition, and 'a new report replaces the previous one' warns about the overwrite. It stops short of naming an alternative for the case where the commands are not yet known.

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

All GitRanks Contribute tools Inspect

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.