Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cp77wb-mcp

cp77wb-mcp

by 0xra0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

wb_worker_build

Preview or build the bundled .NET 10 WolvenKit worker; enable run to publish it and optionally capture full dotnet publish output in a log file.

Instructions

Preview or build the bundled .NET 10 WolvenKit worker. run=false by default; optional log_file captures full dotnet publish output.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "wb_worker_build"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runNo
dotnetNo
outputNo
sourceNo
timeoutNo
log_fileNo

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that run=false is the default preview mode and that log_file captures full dotnet publish output, but it omits what the build writes, where it writes it, whether it overwrites artifacts, and what prerequisites or permissions are needed.

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-loaded with the core purpose and default behavior, with no unnecessary wording. The preview/build distinction and log capture are stated efficiently.

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 six-parameter build tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It explains only the default run behavior and log_file, leaving most parameters and build side effects unclear.

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?

There are six parameters at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must explain them. It only covers run and log_file; dotnet, output, source, and timeout are completely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: preview or build the bundled .NET 10 WolvenKit worker. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as wb_worker_bundle, wb_worker_import, or wb_worker_doctor.

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?

The phrase 'run=false by default' implies a preview-first workflow, which gives some usage guidance. However, it does not say when to use this build tool versus the many related worker and build siblings, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions.

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