SuperPost

Preview source folder filters

preview_source_scope_rules

Read-onlyIdempotent

Previews replacement include/exclude rules for one source scope. The request identifies the scope by sourceScopeId and its current updatedAt revision as expectedUpdatedAt. Each supplied array replaces that full list; an omitted field remains unchanged and [] clears the list. Patterns are relative to this scope root: * matches within one path segment, ** crosses folders, and ? matches one non-slash character. Includes form an allowlist and excludes take precedence. The read-only result counts currently indexed, available files matching the proposed rules and returns up to eight scope-relative examples plus newly included or excluded files. Scanning is capped at 5,000 indexed files; when filesMatchedExact is false, counts are lower bounds.

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": {
      "sourceScopeId": "<sourceScopeId>",
      "expectedUpdatedAt": "<expectedUpdatedAt>"
    },
    "name": "preview_source_scope_rules"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sourceScopeId`	Yes
`excludePatterns`	No
`includePatterns`	No
`expectedUpdatedAt`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`after`	Yes
`before`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`effects`	Yes
`previewHash`	Yes
`sourceScope`	Yes
`expectedUpdatedAt`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses that supplied arrays replace the full list, omitted fields stay unchanged, [] clears, excludes take precedence over includes, scanning is capped at 5,000 indexed files, and counts are lower bounds when filesMatchedExact is false. These are non-obvious semantics an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then replacement semantics, then glob syntax, then return behavior — a sensible order with no filler. The pattern-syntax sentence is dense but each clause is load-bearing for correct pattern construction.

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 read-only preview with four parameters and an output schema, the description supplies the mutation-like semantics of the arrays, the concurrency token, and the exactness caveat on counts. What remains unstated — that expectedUpdatedAt must be fetched beforehand, and concrete example return fields — is minor given the output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does it: it explains that sourceScopeId identifies the scope, expectedUpdatedAt is the current revision used for optimistic concurrency, and that includePatterns/excludePatterns replace the whole list with [] as the clear signal. It also defines glob semantics (`*`, `**`, `?`) that the schema does not express.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource — previewing replacement include/exclude rules for a single source scope — which clearly separates it from list_source_scopes and search_sources. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is strongly implied by 'previews' and the request/response framing (test rules before applying, pass the current revision to detect staleness), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_source_scopes or search_sources, and no stated prerequisite about the revision coming from a prior read.

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

All SuperPost tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?