Skip to main content
Glama
EricSeokgon

egovframe-scaffold-mcp

by EricSeokgon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

프로젝트 생성

create_egovframe_project

Scaffold a new eGovFrame project from official GitHub templates by applying project name, groupId, and database type, with dry-run preview before files are written.

Instructions

전자정부 표준프레임워크 공식 템플릿으로 새 프로젝트 골격을 생성합니다. 공식 GitHub 템플릿을 내려받아 projectName/groupId/DB 타입을 적용합니다. dryRun=true로 먼저 미리보기할 수 있습니다.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNo내려받을 브랜치/태그(미지정 시 템플릿 기본 브랜치). 예: main, v4.3.0
dryRunNotrue면 디스크에 쓰지 않고 생성 예정 내용만 미리보기
groupIdYes자바 groupId. 예: egovframework.example
databaseNoDB 타입 (템플릿 지원: hsql|mysql|oracle|altibase|tibero)hsql
templateNo템플릿 종류simple-backend
outputDirYes프로젝트를 생성할 상위 디렉터리(절대경로 권장)
projectNameYes프로젝트명(artifactId). 소문자·숫자·하이픈, 예: my-egov-app

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.36.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / template / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "simple-backend",
-  "simple-react",
-  "simple-homepage",
-  "portal-site",
-  "enterprise-business",
-  "web-sample",
-  "msa-edu"
-]New value: +[
+  "simple-backend",
+  "simple-react",
+  "simple-homepage",
+  "portal-site",
+  "enterprise-business",
+  "web-sample",
+  "msa-edu",
+  "msa-common-components",
+  "mobile-device-api",
+  "ai-rag",
+  "web",
+  "boot-web",
+  "batch-file-scheduler",
+  "batch-file-commandline",
+  "batch-file-web",
+  "batch-db-scheduler",
+  "batch-db-commandline",
+  "batch-db-web",
+  "mobile-web",
+  "mobile-common-components",
+  "msa-portal-backend",
+  "msa-portal-frontend"
+]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.19.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / dryRun
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "true면 디스크에 쓰지 않고 생성 예정 내용만 미리보기",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / ref
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "내려받을 브랜치/태그(미지정 시 템플릿 기본 브랜치). 예: main, v4.3.0",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / template / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "simple-backend",
-  "simple-react"
-]New value: +[
+  "simple-backend",
+  "simple-react",
+  "simple-homepage",
+  "portal-site",
+  "enterprise-business",
+  "web-sample",
+  "msa-edu"
+]
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, which frame this as a mutating network-backed operation. The description adds real context beyond that: it downloads from the official GitHub template and writes to disk, and that dryRun=true suppresses the write for preview. It stops short of saying what happens on name collision or existing outputDir.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what it creates and where the source comes from, then the applied inputs, then the preview affordance. No filler.

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 7-param creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers source, inputs and the dryRun escape hatch adequately. It omits destination-write semantics (overwrite behavior on non-empty outputDir), which is the one gap an agent might need before committing.

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 every parameter is already documented, including the two enums and their defaults. The description only gestures at projectName/groupId/DB type and dryRun, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (create project skeleton) and names the source (official eGovFrame/GitHub template), plus what gets applied. It distinguishes itself from read/list siblings, though it never names the closest alternative like list_egovframe_templates or generate_egovframe_crud.

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 implied: creating a brand-new project from a template. It adds a useful hint to preview with dryRun=true first, but gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives (e.g., vs. generate_egovframe_crud or apply_egovframe_recipe for adding to an existing project).

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