Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
shipfast-mcp

shipfast-mcp

by QuocTang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Scaffold Project

scaffold_project

Initialize a project with shipfast workflow files, docs, and Claude skills, previewing every change in a dry run before anything is written.

Instructions

Scaffold quy trình shipfast vào dự án: CLAUDE.md, docs/ (wave, backlog, decision log, tổ chức), skill trong .claude/skills/.

Không ghi đè file đã có. Ghi .shipfast/ để sau này nâng cấp tự gộp. Luôn chạy dry_run trước và trình PO danh sách.

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": {
      "project_dir": "<project_dir>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "display_name": "<display_name>"
    },
    "name": "scaffold_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoinit: repo mới, kèm hồ sơ W01. adopt: dự án đang chạyinit
nameYesSlug dự án: chữ thường không dấu, số, gạch ngang
branchNoNhánh chính của repomain
dry_runNotrue: chỉ báo sẽ tạo gì, không ghi file
code_langNoNgôn ngữ comment và commit messagevi
descriptionNoMô tả sản phẩm một hai câu; để trống nếu chưa chốt
project_dirYesĐường dẫn tuyệt đối tới gốc repo dự án
display_nameYesTên hiển thị của dự án

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.3

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot express: existing files are protected from overwrite and a .shipfast/ marker is written so future upgrades can merge automatically. The dry-run-first ritual is also a behavioral rule an agent must follow. Missing only edge-case behavior (partial failure, merge conflicts on an adopt run).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, no filler: artifact list first, then the non-overwrite constraint, then the metadata rationale, then the mandatory dry-run step. Front-loaded and scannable. Each sentence earns its place, though the artifacts list could be slightly tightened.

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 multi-artifact scaffolding mutation with 8 parameters, the description covers what is created, the safety rule against overwriting, the dry-run gate, and the .shipfast/ upgrade path; an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Remaining gaps (behavior on adopt vs init, what happens mid-failure) are modest but real.

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 one of the 8 parameters is already documented, including the init/adopt enum meaning, and the description adds only the dry_run workflow rule rather than new semantics for name, branch, code_lang, or display_name. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 (scaffold) and enumerates exactly what gets created: CLAUDE.md, docs/ (wave, backlog, decision log, tổ chức), .claude/skills/, plus the .shipfast/ metadata directory. An agent knows precisely what this tool produces. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead (e.g. upgrade for an already-scaffolded project), so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

Gives an explicit operating procedure: always run with dry_run first and present the resulting list to the PO, and never overwrite existing files. The .shipfast/ note hints that later nâng cấp is handled elsewhere. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, which keeps it below a 5.

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