Skip to main content
Glama

SHPBL: Repository Audit & Repair

Run the full gauntlet — Practitioner

run_gauntlet
Read-onlyIdempotent

One runner for an entire SHPBL repository audit and repair: survey, opening library comparison, evaluation, repair, the batched harvest, closing library comparison, the branded HTML report, and the write-back path. STRICT SEQUENCE: call it once with no step for the run card, then step: 1, step: 2, one step per turn, in order. Do the returned step, report one line to the person, then call the next. Never call two steps in one turn, never attempt the whole run at once, and never infer a finding you were not handed. From step: 2 on you must pass ledger_digest; every 3 steps (adjustable with checkpoint_interval, max 10, only when the person asks for fewer pauses) the run pauses and you must ask the person before continuing, then pass continue_ack: "continue". The final step hands over the report template and the write-back path. Your own model does all reading and writing. This full conductor requires a Practitioner key (7-day free trial). The free lane provides repository evaluation, not a partial or full gauntlet.

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`, a URL, or `owner/repo#branch`.
stepNo0 to 2000. 0 (default) returns the run card and the plan with no source. 1…N walk the harvest batches, one per turn and in order. N+1 closes the run with the report template and the write-back path. Do not skip ahead.
budgetNoCharacters per harvest step — a whole number from 10,000 to 120,000. Defaults to a moderate 45,000 so each step stays readable and cheap; raise it toward 90,000 only if the person asks for fewer, heavier steps.
includeNoOptional path filter — only paths containing this text are in scope for the whole run.
fold_tokenNoThe `fold_token` returned by the previous step, passed back verbatim. Required from `step: 2` onward: it is signed by this server and carries the previous step's number and the hash of the ledger you held then, so a step cannot be skipped and a ledger cannot be truncated or replaced. Never edit it, never write one yourself.
own_libraryNoYour own previously harvested capabilities, read out of your repository's `.shpbl/` library and passed back in. Optional. When present, this run checks your concerns against your own library first and tells you which ones you already solved. It is held in memory for this call only — never stored, never added to SHPBL's library.
continue_ackNoThe person's approval to continue past a checkpoint. Every 3 harvest steps this run pauses: report to the person, ask whether to continue, and only when they say yes call the next step with `continue_ack: "continue"`. Never send it without asking.
github_tokenNoOptional GitHub token (Contents: read) for a private repository. Not needed if the SHPBL GitHub App is connected to this key.
protocol_ackNoSet true to say this session already holds the SHPBL protocol. The discipline, the ten meta capabilities, the hands-off list and the return shapes are then not printed on step 0 or step 1 — they are unchanged and they still bind the run. Use it when you have already called `method_protocol` or run a staged tool in this session; it saves tens of thousands of characters of repetition.
ledger_digestNoThe ledger folded so far, one line per capability, **each line carrying the file path it came from** (for example `src/lib/queue.ts — retry with backoff`). Required from `step: 2` onward — it is the proof that you actually folded the previous step — and required on the closing step so the closing library comparison runs against what you harvested. The server checks shape as well as length: a ledger that names no paths, or is padded out around one, is refused (and not charged).
checkpoint_intervalNoHow many harvest steps between check-ins with the person. Defaults to 3; raise it (up to 10) only when the person has asked for fewer pauses. Never set it silently — the check-ins are how the person stays in the loop. Once set it rides inside the run's `fold_token`, so passing it again on later steps is not required; if you ever start a fresh chain, set it again or the run returns to 3.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the tool's statefulness: fold_token is signed and proves step order, ledger_digest is shape-checked and refused if padded, checkpoints pause every 3 steps, and protocol_ack suppresses repeated protocol output. It also explicitly resolves the readOnly hint by saying 'Your own model does all reading and writing.'

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but densely packed and front-loaded with purpose, then strict operational rules. Each sentence carries protocol, safety, or auth information; even the free-lane note prevents wasted or unauthorized calls.

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?

For a 12-parameter stateful workflow with no output schema, the description covers invocation sequence, authentication, checkpoint handling, parameter provenance, and failure semantics such as refused ledgers not being charged. Nothing critical to calling the tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial inter-parameter semantics: step progression, ledger_digest formatting and validation, fold_token security, when continue_ack is required, and how checkpoint_interval rides inside the run. An agent could not safely orchestrate these parameters from the schema alone.

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 first sentence names a precise verb+resource: 'one runner for an entire SHPBL repository audit and repair', followed by a specific pipeline from survey through write-back path. It clearly distinguishes the full gauntlet from the free evaluation-only lane and from the sibling staged tools.

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?

The description gives an explicit turn-by-turn protocol: call once with no step for the run card, then step: 1, step: 2, one per turn, never two steps at once. It also states prerequisites (Practitioner key), exclusions (free lane is not a gauntlet), and checkpoint/continue_ack rules.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct stages or resource types: evaluate/fix/harvest are clearly separate audit phases, and write_to_repo/list_repos are unambiguous. The library_* trio is mostly separable but library_document and library_index both offer access to volumes, and run_gauntlet partially overlaps the individual stage tools, so a couple of boundaries are less crisp.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern: evaluate_repo, fix_repo, harvest_repo, write_to_repo, list_repos, run_gauntlet. A few are noun_noun or resource-prefixed like library_search, library_document, subscription_status, and welcome/selfcheck_mcp are one-offs, so it is predictable but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count5/5

At 14 tools the server sits within the ideal 3-15 range, and each tool has a plausible role in the audit/repair, library, or operational workflow. The count is on the larger side but justified by separate free and Practitioner lanes, library services, and health/status checks.

Completeness4/5

The core audit lifecycle is well covered: list/scope, evaluate, fix, harvest, write back, plus library search and run orchestration. The main gap is that build_intent explicitly gates COMPOSE/SPECIALIZE/CREATE operations, but no actual compose/specialize/create tools are exposed, and there is no explicit run_gauntlet cancellation or reset, though agents can work around both.

Resources