Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PinchMCP

PinchMCP

by 0xEl1yahu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Ground a feature for decomposition (cold-start)

decompose_grounding

Predicts which code areas a feature will touch and which existing tickets overlap, grounding the decomposition into tickets.

Instructions

Given a free-text feature description, predict which code areas it will touch and which existing tickets overlap — grounding for the client to decompose it into tickets. Suggestions only; pinch never creates tickets (use the Linear MCP). project_id accepts a name/slug/UUID; repo_path is the local checkout; feature is the description to ground.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "repo_path": "<repo_path>",
      "feature": "<feature>"
    },
    "name": "decompose_grounding"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
featureYesFree-text description of the feature to ground
repo_pathYesAbsolute path to the project's local git checkout
project_idYesLinear project name, URL slug, or UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is non-destructive ('suggestions only') and does not create tickets, but fails to mention side effects, error handling, performance considerations, or response structure. For a prediction tool, this transparency is inadequate.

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?

The description is two sentences with no redundant content. The first sentence concisely captures the core functionality. The second sentence provides parameter clarification and disclaimers. Slightly verbose but efficient overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide a clearer picture of the output format. It hints at predictions for code areas and existing tickets, but does not specify the structure or how to interpret results. It is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps that could confuse an AI agent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal extra value. It rephrases parameter purposes (e.g., 'repo_path is the local checkout') but does not provide new constraints or usage details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's action: predicting code areas and overlapping tickets from a free-text feature description. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it does not create tickets, directing users to the Linear MCP for ticket creation.

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?

The description provides clear context for when not to use it (ticket creation) and names an alternative (Linear MCP). It also specifies acceptable input formats for project_id. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other sibling tools like rank_keystones or surface_gaps.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools