pull_instructionsReturn CLI and HTTP commands for pulling a harness into a local workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| owner | No | harnesses |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| code | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "const": "OK",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "const": true,
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "maximum": 599,
+ "minimum": 100,
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok",
+ "code",
+ "status"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing a strong behavioral profile. The description adds that it returns both CLI and HTTP commands, which is useful context beyond the structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and output. No wasted words; every part contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a low-complexity tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but could mention the format of the returned commands (e.g., plain text, code blocks) to avoid ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'pulling a harness' without specifying that 'name' is the harness name or the role of 'owner' (default 'harnesses'). This gap leaves the agent guessing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns both CLI and HTTP commands for pulling a harness into a local workspace. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like pull_harness (which likely performs the pull) and fetch (generic retrieval).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when needing commands to pull a harness, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives. For example, it does not clarify that the actual pulling is done by pull_harness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among search variants (search, search_resources, search_harnesses) and between fetch and resource_detail, which could cause confusion.
Naming mostly follows a verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies such as 'publish_markdown_to_harness' being longer and 'resource_use_instructions' having a different structure.
12 tools is appropriate for a registry server, covering search, fetch, publish, and pull operations without being overwhelming.
The tool set covers core operations (search, fetch, publish, pull) but lacks update and delete functionalities, which are minor gaps for a registry.