Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
warp-mcp

warp-mcp

by Ringer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get port-in error groups

port_get_error_groups
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve TNIQ validation error groups blocking a port request. After validation or rejection, identify issues, then resolve with port_auto_fix or port_set_group_details.

Instructions

Get the TNIQ validation/port error groups for the project. Use after port_validate_request or a rejected submission to see what's blocking the port, then resolve with port_auto_fix (pass an error_group_id) or port_set_group_details. Errors: NOT_FOUND, TNIQ_ERROR.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "port_get_error_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPort request UUID (from port_list_requests or port_create_request)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds context about what the tool retrieves (error groups) and its role in the port validation workflow. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences plus error listing, all front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description fully explains tool purpose, usage context, and how to interpret results. Errors are listed. No gaps.

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 already explains the 'id' parameter as 'Port request UUID'. Description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clearly states it gets TNIQ validation/port error groups for the project, with specific verb 'get' and resource 'error groups'. Differentiates from siblings by focusing on error groups related to port validation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells when to use (after port_validate_request or rejected submission) and how to proceed (use port_auto_fix or port_set_group_details with error_group_id). Also lists error responses for completeness.

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