Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bolt-mcp

bolt-mcp

by BrittainKnight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

bolt_registry_promote

Copies an unchanged verified component into the local immutable registry under a new slug, enabling reuse of the validated build without altering its contents.

Instructions

Copy an unchanged VERIFIED component to the local immutable registry under a new slug.

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": {
      "slotId": "<slotId>",
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "bolt_registry_promote"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYes
tagsNo
slotIdYes
descriptionNo
projectPathNoProject directory; defaults to the server project

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations by disclosing the destination is an 'immutable' registry and that the component is copied (source preserved) under a new slug. However, with idempotentHint=false it should state what happens when the slug already exists (error vs overwrite), which it does not.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence in which every word earns its place: 'unchanged', 'VERIFIED', 'immutable', and 'new slug' each carry distinct constraints with no filler.

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 5-parameter non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and 20% schema coverage, one sentence is too thin: it omits duplicate-slug behavior, failure modes, and the semantics of three of the five parameters.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (only projectPath documented), so the description must compensate but does not. It gives partial meaning for `slug` ('a new slug') but says nothing about slotId, tags, or 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?

States a specific verb and resource: copy a VERIFIED component into the local immutable registry under a new slug. The 'unchanged VERIFIED' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling bolt_verify_slot and bolt_registry_search_mount, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied: the component must already be 'VERIFIED' and 'unchanged', which hints that bolt_verify_slot precedes this call, but no explicit precondition or when-to-use-vs-alternatives statement is given.

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