BotKelp

Get scaffold template

get_scaffold_template

Requests a build for the given component ids, backed by a private GitHub repo BotKelp owns and manages itself under its own org — never your account. Returns the repo's location and a short-lived, single-repo-scoped clone credential; clone it yourself, BotKelp never touches wherever you copy it to. Repeat requests for the same component combination reuse the same repo at no extra GitHub-side cost. Requires an BotKelp account key with sufficient credit — there is no free/local mode for this tool (see generate_scaffold for that). See check_component_updates to find out when a newer combination is available.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`botKelpKey`	Yes	BotKelp account key (starts with "bk_live_"). Required.
`components`	Yes	Component ids to include, e.g. ["nextjs-base", "tailwind", "supabase-client"].
`projectName`	No	Name used in package.json and templates.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses ownership, credential scoping and lifetime, the fact that BotKelp never touches the cloned destination, repeat-request reuse, and the account-key credit requirement.

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 dense but every sentence adds necessary context: what is built, where it lives, how to clone it, reuse behavior, and credit requirements. The core action and outcome are front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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?

Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values and operational constraints, and it does: repo location, short-lived scoped credential, no free mode, credit requirement, and related tools. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and know what to expect.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds meaningful behavioral context about component combinations being reused and no extra GitHub-side cost for repeat requests, which enriches the component parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action (requests a build for component ids), the resource (a private GitHub repo owned by BotKelp), and the outcome (returns repo location and clone credential). It clearly distinguishes itself from generate_scaffold by noting the paid vs free/local difference.

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?

It explicitly says there is no free/local mode and points to generate_scaffold for that alternative, giving the agent a clear when-not-to-use condition. It also references check_component_updates for determining when a newer combination is available, which guides follow-up usage.

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

All BotKelp tools Inspect

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

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct workflow step: registry search, update checking, three scaffold delivery modes, build verification, project registration, project listing, repo changes, and issue reporting. The apparent overlap between generate_scaffold, get_scaffold_template, and buy_scaffold_template is resolved by their clearly different delivery and payment models.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent imperative verb + noun snake_case pattern, such as search_components, create_project, verify_scaffold, and report_issue. The verbs are specific and predictable, making the set easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well-scoped for a server handling component discovery, scaffold generation, build verification, project management, and feedback. Each tool covers a meaningful, non-redundant function without bloating the surface.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is well covered: discover components, check for updates, generate or purchase scaffolds, verify builds, apply changes to a repository, and report issues. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool to delete or update a registered project, but these do not block the primary workflows.

Resources

Need Help?