Skip to main content
Glama

SHPBL: Repository Audit & Repair

by com.shpbl

Compose a new capability into a repository

compose_capability
Read-onlyIdempotent

The harvest lane: read what a repository can already do, then offer Capability Grants that fuse those affordances with owned SHPBL primitive capabilities — DREAM, EVOLUTION, MEMORY, DEFENSE, BRAIN and the rest of the canonical forty, plus the S-Tier artifacts. Each grant names the host evidence it mounts on, the exact capability bodies bound into it (with class PURE, SEAMED or PORTED and every declared port), a seed module containing those harvested bodies, the wiring and verification the caller's own agent must complete, and the honest limits. This is not repair and not a defect scan; no grant is finished application code. Deterministic: the same tree yields the same grants and the same seal. Free calls return the affordances read and the offerable census, then stop at the composition boundary; grants require a Practitioner key (7-day free trial).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNoYour SHPBL Practitioner subscription key (shpbl_mcp_…). Optional if your client sends it as the `Authorization: Bearer …` request header.
repoYesA GitHub repository: `owner/repo` or a URL.
pagesNoHow many source pages to read for affordance evidence, 1 to 12 (about 90,000 characters each). More pages means more of the tree is read; the grants are cut from whatever was read.
grantsNoHow many Capability Grants to return, 1 to 24. Ranked by measured fit and capability standing.
includeNoOptional path filter — only paths containing this text are read for affordances.
github_tokenNoOptional GitHub token (Contents: read) for a private repository.
per_affordanceNoHow many grants one affordance may produce, 1 to 4. Raise it to see alternative leads for the same host capability.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those: deterministic output ('the same tree yields the same grants and the same seal'), the free-call stopping point, and the Practitioner key requirement. It also clarifies that nothing written is finished application code, which is consistent with readOnlyHint.

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 information-dense and mostly purposeful, with useful details on grants, determinism, and authorization. However, it is jargon-heavy — 'harvest lane,' 'canonical forty,' 'S-Tier artifacts' — and is not front-loaded around the primary action. It earns a 3 for structure.

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 carries the burden of explaining return behavior, and it does: free calls return affordances and the offerable census, while paid calls return grants with host evidence, bound capability bodies, seed modules, wiring, verification steps, and limits. It is adequate for a complex tool, though the exact output shape remains somewhat fuzzy.

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 input schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds flavor like grants being 'cut from whatever was read,' but it does not add parameter-specific semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific workflow: read repository affordances and offer Capability Grants that fuse them with SHPBL primitives. It also explicitly says it is not repair and not a defect scan, which differentiates it from fix/evaluate siblings. However, the 'compose into a repository' title and 'harvest lane' jargon make the core action slightly less crisp than it could be.

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?

The description gives clear when-not-to-use signals: 'This is not repair and not a defect scan; no grant is finished application code.' It also explains the free-vs-paid boundary: free calls stop at the composition boundary, while grants require a Practitioner key. It does not name a specific sibling to use instead, but the exclusions are actionable.

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

All SHPBL: Repository Audit & Repair 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct roles, but the capability-discovery cluster is genuinely confusable: compose_capability calls itself 'the harvest lane' while harvest_repo is 'the harvest,' and evaluate_repo with a key also identifies candidates and composes — an agent must read long descriptions carefully to pick correctly. The free/key mode-switching also makes each tool's effective behavior conditional, raising misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant pattern is verb_noun (build_intent, evaluate_repo, fix_repo, harvest_repo, list_repos, pin_source, run_contract, run_gauntlet, write_to_repo), and the library_document/library_index/library_search trio follows a deliberate resource-prefix convention. A few outliers break the pattern — welcome (bare verb), selfcheck_mcp, and subscription_status — but they are a small minority and still readable.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools the set is slightly past the ideal 3-15 range, but the domain genuinely spans an audit pipeline, a capability library, run orchestration, repo write-back, and billing/onboarding meta-tools. Roughly a third are lightweight informational endpoints (welcome, method_protocol, run_contract, library_index, subscription_status, selfcheck_mcp), which adds surface area, but each has a distinct job and none is redundant.

Completeness4/5

The lifecycle is well covered: pin_source → evaluate_repo → fix_repo → harvest_repo → compose_capability → write_to_repo, with run_gauntlet orchestrating the whole path and run_contract/method_protocol providing gates and discipline. Minor gaps exist — write_to_repo is create-only with no PR update/merge/close, and past run state is only resumable via ledger_digest — but there are no dead ends.

Resources