Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@spoc/mcp-bridge

@spoc/mcp-bridge

Official
by SPOC-App
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Fetch public harness metadata

spoc.harness.get

Retrieve public metadata for a harness by ID. Redacts handles for principal-linked passports when the caller isn't the owner.

Instructions

Return the public metadata for a harness by id. Principal-linked passports have their handle redacted for non-owning callers.

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": {
      "harness_id": "<harness_id>"
    },
    "name": "spoc.harness.get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
harness_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only public metadata is returned and that handles are redacted for non-owning callers on principal-linked passports, which is meaningful access-control context. It does not state not-found behavior, error semantics, or any other access prerequisites.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action before the redaction caveat. Every sentence contributes information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return concept and an important visibility caveat. It remains incomplete on metadata shape, failure modes, and how a caller obtains a valid harness id.

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 for the single harness_id parameter. 'By id' merely restates the parameter name and adds no format, provenance, or example guidance, leaving the agent with only the schema's length constraints.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the public metadata for a harness by id.' This clearly distinguishes a read operation from mutating siblings such as spoc.harness.issue or spoc.harness.complete, though it never names those alternatives or explicitly frames itself as the retrieval counterpart.

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 only implied: the tool is for fetching metadata when a harness id is known. There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over spoc.harness.verify, spoc.harness.report, or spoc.task.get, and no stated preconditions or exclusions.

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