Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ProvenPin

by io.github.provenpin
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Search tested recipes

search_recipes
Read-only

Find a tested, version-pinned code recipe for wiring libraries together. Call this BEFORE writing glue code that combines 2+ libraries (auth + framework, ORM + database, payments webhooks, queues, validation, request mocking, logging), when choosing or pinning package versions, when upgrading a library to a new major version (for example SQLAlchemy 2 or Pydantic 2), and when you hit version conflicts, peer-dependency errors, deprecation errors or integration errors between libraries. Example queries: 'express stripe webhook', 'fastapi sqlmodel crud', 'hono jwt'. Only recipes whose latest test run passed are returned. Each result lists its exact pinned versions and a test receipt (receipt.last_passed_at). Pass the project's lockfile or a {package: version} map as versions: recipes that match the installed versions rank first and each result gets a compatibility summary. Each result's coverage (0 to 1) is the share of your query's words it matches. If no recipe fits, count is 0 and results is empty: write the code yourself; try list_stacks to see what is covered.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYesWhat you are wiring together, in plain words or library names, e.g. 'django rest api' or 'rq redis jobs'.
stackNoOnly recipes that use all of these libraries.
languageNo
versionsNoOptional but recommended: the versions in the user's project, so results are checked against them. Either a map like {"next": "15.2.0", "zod": "3.23.8"} or the raw text of package.json, package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, yarn.lock, requirements.txt, poetry.lock or uv.lock (max 200KB). Used only for this call, never stored.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / versions
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "description": "Optional but recommended: the versions in the user's project, so results are checked against them. Either a map like {\"next\": \"15.2.0\", \"zod\": \"3.23.8\"} or the raw text of package.json, package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, yarn.lock, requirements.txt, poetry.lock or uv.lock (max 200KB). Used only for this call, never stored.",
+  "type": [
+    "object",
+    "string"
+  ]
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing that only recipes with a passing latest test run are returned, that results carry a test receipt and compatibility summary, and that the versions input is used only for this call and never stored. It does not mention result ordering beyond version-match ranking or any rate limits, so it stops short of the top of the range.

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?

Purpose comes first, then triggers, then inputs, then return semantics and the failure case — a well-ordered funnel. It is dense and somewhat long, with mild redundancy around 'version-pinned'/'pinned versions' and the parenthetical library pairings, but nearly every clause adds usable routing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: each result's pinned versions, test receipt (receipt.last_passed_at), coverage as a 0-1 ratio, compatibility summary, and the empty-result shape (count 0). Combined with query examples and the fallback to list_stacks, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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?

With 60% schema coverage, the description meaningfully extends the versions parameter (lockfile or map, drives ranking and the per-result compatibility summary, never persisted) and explains stack filtering behavior plus the coverage score. The limit parameter goes undocumented in both schema and description, and language has only an enum, so a small gap remains.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find a tested, version-pinned code recipe for wiring libraries together.' The scope (tested, version-pinned, cross-library wiring) is distinctive enough to separate it from get_recipe and list_stacks, and list_stacks is named explicitly as the coverage-lookup alternative.

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 ('Call this BEFORE writing glue code that combines 2+ libraries') plus a concrete enumeration of situations: choosing/pinning versions, major upgrades, version/peer-dependency/deprecation/integration errors. It also states the exclusion path — if count is 0, write the code yourself and try list_stacks.

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

All ProvenPin toolsInspect
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