Skip to main content
Glama

TrustyCap

by com.trustycap

Get a TrustyCap Native Kit

trustycap_get_native_kit
Read-onlyIdempotent

Everything needed to install one Native Kit without reverse-engineering the application it came from: every file it ships with its content hash and the production path it was cut from, every pinned dependency and why that pin, every permission, entitlement, background mode and plist or manifest key with what breaks when it is absent, the JavaScript interface, the configuration that must not be changed and the reason for each, the ordered install steps including the ones that need a human in Xcode or a provider console, what is proven and how, and the real constraints. Read this before touching a native project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesNative Kit id, e.g. background-location

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description meaningfully adds content-level context by enumerating exactly what is returned—hashes, pinned dependencies, permissions, plist keys, human-in-the-loop install steps, and constraints—without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The opening phrase is a strong front-loaded summary. The rest is one long colon-driven enumeration that would scan more easily as bullets or short sentences, but each listed item carries specific, non-redundant content.

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 one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent will get, and it does so exhaustively: files, hashes, dependencies, permissions, install steps, evidence, and constraints. It also tells the agent when to consult the result, making the definition complete for correct invocation.

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?

The single 'id' parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including an example. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description opens with a specific resource ('one Native Kit') and an outcome ('install without reverse-engineering'), and the promised contents—files, hashes, dependencies, permissions, install steps—clearly distinguish this from list-oriented siblings like trustycap_list_native_kits and get_launch_kit.

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?

'Read this before touching a native project' provides a clear, concrete usage context, and the focus on installing one Native Kit implies it is for detailed single-kit prep rather than discovery. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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

All TrustyCap 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or decision point—capabilities, launch kits, native kits, and production readiness—but trustycap_guide and trustycap_production_readiness can both respond to a human asking what to build, and guide overlaps somewhat with the list_* tools in matching outcomes. The detailed descriptions resolve most ambiguity, so the set is largely clear.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a trustycap_<verb>_<noun> pattern, such as list_capabilities, get_launch_kit, and list_native_kits. trustycap_guide and trustycap_production_readiness break that convention with a bare verb and a noun phrase, but the shared prefix and snake_case style keep the naming mostly predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a reference and decisioning server covering three resource families plus guidance. Each tool has a clear purpose, and there are no redundant entries.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers listing and retrieving Launch Kits and Native Kits, enumerating capabilities, guided matching, and production-readiness evaluation. Minor gaps exist—such as no separate capability-detail tool and no tool to execute or install a kit—but those seem outside the server's informational scope.

Resources