Skip to main content
Glama

Scaffold Flags Integration

scaffold_flags_integration
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scaffold a flags-only Bridge integration into an existing project — the MCP equivalent of bridge flag init. Returns everything that command produces, for YOU to write to disk: the contents of bridge-flags.config.json (app id, app name, base URL, suggested provider config, read live from this Bridge app), the install command, and the framework-specific setup guide fetched from the plugin repo that owns it. Writes nothing — neither to disk nor to the Bridge app. Call this when adding feature flags to a project for the first time; for auth or billing use get_integration_guide with topic=master or topic=billing-master instead. framework is REQUIRED: this server cannot see the caller's disk, so detect it yourself from package.json (next → nextjs, @sveltejs/kit or svelte → svelte, @nestjs/core → nestjs, @angular/core → angular, react → react, express → express; check in that order) and pass it. The returned guide is the same document get_integration_guide returns for topic=feature-flags, so there is no need to call both. Do not invent import specifiers — they differ per plugin and only the guide has the current ones.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appNoId of the Bridge app to act on for this call (see list_apps). Omit to use the current app.
baseUrlNoBridge API base URL to write into the config. Defaults to the one of the Bridge environment this server runs in. Pass it only when the project should talk to a different Bridge environment.
frameworkYesThe framework the target project uses. Required — the server cannot see the caller's disk. Detect it from the project's package.json dependencies.
includeGuideNoWhether to fetch and inline the framework setup guide. Defaults to true. Pass false only when you have already read it via get_integration_guide and want just the config.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: it enumerates exactly what is returned (config contents, install command, setup guide), confirms nothing is written to disk or the Bridge app, and notes the base URL is read live from the current Bridge app. It also discloses that the guide is fetched from the plugin repo that owns it.

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?

Long but every sentence carries distinct weight: purpose, return payload, no-write guarantee, usage routing, framework detection, guide dedup, and an import-specifier warning. Purpose and the CLI analogy are front-loaded, with operational detail following.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so explicitly, plus it removes the main ambiguity (does it write? is it required to pass framework?) for a scaffold tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the basics are covered, but the description adds a full framework-detection procedure (package.json mappings with an explicit check order) that the schema does not contain, and explains why framework is required. app/baseUrl/includeGuide get no additional meaning beyond their schema docs, keeping this out of 5 territory.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Scaffold a flags-only Bridge integration into an existing project') and anchors it to a concrete equivalent ('bridge flag init'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by telling the agent to use get_integration_guide for auth/billing topics.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('adding feature flags to a project for the first time'), names the alternative for other cases ('for auth or billing use get_integration_guide with topic=master or topic=billing-master'), and warns against a redundant call ('no need to call both'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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.