Skip to main content
Glama
Fmarzochi

EGC

by Fmarzochi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

team_init

Set up a git-backed sync backend for team memory sharing. Configure team.json and synchronize state files across developer workstations using a shared remote URL.

Instructions

Initialize a sync backend for team memory sharing. Configures the team.json file and sets up the git repository for syncing state files across teammates. Call once per developer workstation after receiving the shared remote URL from a teammate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
branchNoGit branch to use for syncing. Defaults to 'main'.main
remoteYesRemote URL for the sync storage (e.g. git@github.com:org/egc-memory).
backendNoSync backend type. Currently only 'git' is supported.git
team_keyNo64 hexadecimal characters: the team key shared out of band by the member who initialized the team. Omit to generate a new key (first member).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.21
    • addedInput schema / properties / team_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "64 hexadecimal characters: the team key shared out of band by the member who initialized the team. Omit to generate a new key (first member).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv1.1.20
  3. Removedv1.1.12
  4. Addedv1.1.7

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the core side effects: configuring team.json and setting up the git repository. However, it does not mention what happens on re-initialization, whether existing files are overwritten, authentication requirements, or any confirmation/output behavior, so transparency is partial.

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 sentences, no filler, and the most important usage constraint ('Call once per developer workstation') is placed early. Every sentence contributes information about what the tool does and when to run it.

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 one-time initialization tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the main context: what gets configured, what storage mechanism is used, and the required precondition. It could also state the post-condition or next step (e.g., use team_sync afterward), but the core information needed to call it correctly is present.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds useful context by framing 'remote' as the 'shared remote URL from a teammate', but it does not meaningfully elaborate on branch, backend, or team_key beyond what the schema provides. 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 names a specific verb ('Initialize'), a clear resource ('sync backend for team memory sharing'), and concrete actions ('Configures the team.json file and sets up the git repository'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like team_sync and team_status, which handle ongoing syncing/status rather than one-time setup.

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 states the exact invocation context: 'Call once per developer workstation after receiving the shared remote URL from a teammate.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the one-time setup framing makes the boundary reasonably clear.

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