Alter Onboarding

sdk_pattern

Return a runnable Alter SDK call pattern for a language: proxy-call (zero-egress proxy_request + HITL), resolve-grant-by-user (call as an end user via their delegated grant), delegate-managed-secret (the operator-side delegation step), or resolve-ambiguous-grant (an identity-mode call matched several of one user's grants: choose deliberately, never the first, and persist it; ask the developer at design time whether users can hold several accounts per provider). Use AFTER sdk_integration has wired the client.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "language": "<language>",
      "pattern": "<pattern>"
    },
    "name": "sdk_pattern"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pattern`	Yes	proxy-call \| resolve-grant-by-user \| delegate-managed-secret \| resolve-ambiguous-grant.
`language`	Yes	Target language.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 18, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / pattern / description

Previous value: -"proxy-call | resolve-grant-by-user | delegate-managed-secret."New value: +"proxy-call | resolve-grant-by-user | delegate-managed-secret | resolve-ambiguous-grant."

changedInput schema / properties / pattern / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "proxy-call",
-  "resolve-grant-by-user",
-  "delegate-managed-secret"
-]New value: +[
+  "proxy-call",
+  "resolve-grant-by-user",
+  "delegate-managed-secret",
+  "resolve-ambiguous-grant"
+]

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses important behavior for `resolve-ambiguous-grant` ('choose deliberately, never the first, and persist it') and characterizes the output as 'runnable'. It does not describe return format or any side effects, but the description is still meaningfully transparent.

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 description is a single dense sentence but every clause earns its place: it defines the output, explains each pattern, embeds a caveat for ambiguous grants, and states the prerequisite. It could be better structured, but it is not padded or redundant.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, pattern selection, and usage sequencing well. It might benefit from an example or explicit return-type detail, but the information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by explaining what each pattern value does (zero-egress + HITL, delegated grant, operator-side delegation, ambiguity handling), which helps an agent pick the correct enum beyond the schema's bare listing.

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 verb ('Return') and a concrete resource ('a runnable Alter SDK call pattern for a language'), then enumerates the exact pattern variants it covers. It also distinguishes itself from sibling sdk_integration by explicitly tying usage to after that tool has wired the client.

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 usage context with 'Use AFTER `sdk_integration` has wired the client' and explains the meaning of each pattern, which helps an agent choose the right one. It does not name alternative tools it should not be used for, but the conditions for selecting the tool are reasonably explicit.

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

All Alter Onboarding tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?