Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
shipfast-mcp

shipfast-mcp

by QuocTang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Upgrade

upgrade
Idempotent

Updates a project's workflow scaffold to the installed shipfast version without the original repo, using three-way merges and leaving conflicts pending while preserving project data files.

Instructions

Nâng khung quy trình của dự án lên phiên bản shipfast đang chạy, không cần repo gốc.

File dự án chưa sửa thì thay bằng bản mới; file dự án đã sửa thì three-way merge; xung đột thì để bản gộp ở .shipfast/pending/ và giữ nguyên file thật. File dữ liệu của dự án (bảng wave, backlog, decision log) không bị đụng.

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": "upgrade"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNotrue: chỉ báo thay đổi, không ghi file
project_dirYesĐường dẫn tuyệt đối tới gốc repo dự án

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.3

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=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety bar is partly met. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the actual mutation strategy: unmodified files are replaced, modified files get a three-way merge, conflicts are written to .shipfast/pending/ while the real file is left untouched, and project data files (wave table, backlog, decision log) are explicitly scoped out — exactly the kind of 'what gets touched' context annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by behavior in a logical order (unmodified → modified → conflict → untouched data). The semicolon-chained sentences are dense but each clause carries information; no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema to describe returns, the description covers everything an agent needs before calling: what is mutated, merge/conflict semantics, and what is guaranteed untouched. Nothing material is missing.

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% and both parameters (project_dir, dry_run with default true) are documented in the schema, so the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail — notably it never mentions dry_run or that the default is a non-writing preview, which would have been the most useful addition for a mutating tool.

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: upgrade the project's process framework to the currently running shipfast version, and adds a distinguishing constraint ('without needing the original repo'). It does not explicitly contrast with likely-adjacent siblings such as check or status, so an agent must infer when this applies versus a read-only version check.

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 by the phrasing 'upgrade ... to the running shipfast version' and by 'no original repo needed', which hints at the upgrade scenario. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative tool for the case where the agent only wants to inspect version state.

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