Skip to main content
Glama

Verify scaffold

verify_scaffold

Remote npm install && npm run build of your edited files (send every file). Call with files -> WAIT + jobId; call again with jobId -> OK or FAIL with the error tail. Needs a purchased projectid.

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": {
      "projectid": "<projectid>"
    },
    "name": "verify_scaffold"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesNoThe full project to verify — a scaffold's files with your edits applied. Omit when polling with jobId.
jobIdNoPoll a previously started verification. Omit on the first call (pass files), pass the returned jobId on subsequent calls.
projectidYesThe project id from a previous purchase_scaffold result — must be owned by this account. Required.
envVariablesNoEnv var names to write placeholder values for before building (typically get_component's `envVariables` output) — needed for components that read process.env at build time (e.g. a Supabase client).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / account_api_key
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / properties / envVariables / description
      Previous value: -"Env var names to write placeholder values for before building (typically generate_scaffold's `envVariables` output) — needed for components that read process.env at build time (e.g. a Supabase client)."New value: +"Env var names to write placeholder values for before building (typically get_component's `envVariables` output) — needed for components that read process.env at build time (e.g. a Supabase client)."
    • removedInput schema / properties / files / description
      Removed value: -"The full project to verify — generate_scaffold's `files` output with your edits applied. Provide this to start a verification."
    • removedInput schema / properties / jobId
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "A job id from a previous WAIT response. Provide this to check a verification already started.",
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectid
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  4. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • removedInput schema / properties / files / items / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent behavior; the description adds real value on top by disclosing the asynchronous job pattern, the need to wait, and that failures return 'the error tail'. It does not mention timeout expectations, cost, or what happens to partial builds, keeping it at 4.

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?

Roughly two sentences using compact arrow notation, front-loaded with the operation and followed immediately by the call pattern and prerequisite. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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 job-based tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contract well (jobId, then OK/FAIL plus error tail) and the ownership prerequisite. It omits expected wait duration and whether repeated polling has limits, which an agent managing a long-running job would want.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: 'send every file' clarifies that `files` is the full project rather than a diff, and the poll pattern clarifies the mutual exclusivity of `files` and `jobId`. `envVariables` is left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb and resource — remote `npm install && npm run build` of edited files — which is far more precise than the name 'verify_scaffold' alone. An agent can distinguish it from get_scaffold and purchase_scaffold because it explicitly describes building, not fetching or buying.

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?

Gives a clear call sequence (files first → jobId, then poll with jobId) and a prerequisite ('Needs a purchased projectid'), which implicitly routes the agent through purchase_scaffold first. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when verification should be skipped, so it falls short of a 5.

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.