Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SKEIN

by net.skein
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

skein_project_resolve

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve a free-form project handle (alias, name, repo URL, or fuzzy/typo input) into a canonical project. Returns match: {id, name, ...} when the resolver is confident, or match: null plus a candidates list of up to 10 alternatives when ambiguous. Use before any tool that takes a project arg if the input came from a human ("demo-service", "the api one", etc.).

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": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "skein_project_resolve"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesFree-form project handle to resolve.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the real value here is the disclosed outcome shape: a confident `match: {id, name, ...}` versus `match: null` with up to 10 `candidates`. That ambiguity contract is exactly what an agent needs and is not in any structured field. It stops short of 5 by not saying what to do with a candidate list (e.g., re-query or pick by id).

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and its input forms, then the return contract, then the call-site rule. Each sentence carries distinct 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?

For a one-param, read-only resolver with no output schema, the description covers input forms, both success and ambiguity outcomes, and when to invoke it. Nothing an agent needs in order to call 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% and the single param `q` is described, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by expanding what 'free-form' means (alias, name, repo URL, typos/fuzzy), which the schema's one-line description does not convey.

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 (resolve) and resource (free-form project handle → canonical project) and enumerates the accepted input forms: alias, name, repo URL, fuzzy/typo. This clearly separates it from skein_project_create / skein_project_list / skein_project_update, which operate on already-known projects.

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 an explicit triggering condition: 'Use before any tool that takes a `project` arg if the input came from a human', with concrete examples ('demo-service', 'the api one'). It does not state the inverse case (skip when you already hold a canonical id) or name a specific alternative tool for disambiguation, so it falls just 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.

All SKEIN 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