Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cp77wb-mcp

cp77wb-mcp

by 0xra0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

wb_plan_apply

Apply a declarative construction plan to a saved build, previewing changes by default; set write=true to commit edits.

Instructions

Apply a declarative construction plan to a saved build. Dry-run unless write=true.

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": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "catalog": "<catalog>",
      "plan": "<plan>"
    },
    "name": "wb_plan_apply"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYes
planYes
writeNo
catalogYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and usefully discloses that the default is non-writing and that mutation requires an explicit write=true opt-in. It does not explain what the dry-run reports, whether application is validated or atomic, or how failures and existing build content are handled.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the operation and then state the critical dry-run default. There is no redundant or promotional wording.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a potentially mutating tool with three required parameters, an unstructured nested plan, no annotations, and no output schema, this is not complete enough for reliable invocation. The missing plan provenance and structure, file and catalog semantics, sibling workflow, and dry-run result behavior are substantial gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description adds meaningful semantics for write and broadly characterizes plan, but schema coverage is 0% and the arbitrary nested plan object receives no structural guidance. The file and catalog parameters remain undocumented, including their expected formats and how the catalog is selected.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: applying a "declarative construction plan" to a "saved build." It does not explicitly differentiate this operation from the closely related wb_plan_compile or wb_plan_preview siblings.

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?

"Dry-run unless write=true" gives useful guidance about previewing versus committing an apply. However, there is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of wb_plan_preview, whether a plan should first be produced by wb_plan_compile, or what prerequisites a saved build must satisfy.

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