Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ForgeGuard MCP

ForgeGuard MCP

by KatoteshiKuka
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

project_register

Register a project directory by providing its root path, verifying it lies within a locally configured allowed root to enable safe workspace operations.

Instructions

Register a project directory. The directory must be inside a locally configured allowed root.

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": {
      "root": "<root>"
    },
    "name": "project_register"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
rootYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0-alpha.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a validation constraint (allowed root), but does not disclose what registration does, whether it is persistent, what side effects occur, or whether it fails if the project already exists.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then adds the key constraint, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this description is under-specified. It omits what happens after registration, what the 'name' parameter controls, and how 'root' interacts with the allowed-root restriction.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely references 'directory' and 'allowed root'. It does not meaningfully explain the required 'root' parameter or the optional 'name' parameter, their relationship, or expected formats.

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 states a specific verb ('Register') and a clear resource ('a project directory'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling read/utility tools like project_list and project_info. The required allowed-root constraint further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 provides clear context for usage by stating that the directory must be inside a locally configured allowed root. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the tool's purpose is distinct enough among the siblings that the context is sufficient.

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