Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BitPull

BitPull

by SamuealPK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

bitpull_create_site_service

Create a Supabase, Neon, or Upstash service for a site folder, provisioning it on the connected account or as a temporary free instance, then write its address and keys to .env.local.

Instructions

Create a database (Supabase or Neon) or Redis (Upstash) for a site folder, on the person's connected account, or with instant: true a free temporary one the person claims (Neon, Upstash; deleted after 72 hours unless claimed). Its address and keys go to the folder's .env.local; only their names are returned.

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": {
      "folder": "<folder>",
      "provider": "<provider>"
    },
    "name": "bitpull_create_site_service"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
folderYesAbsolute path of the folder
instantNo
providerYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the real behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that credentials are written into the folder's .env.local, that only key names are returned, and that instant resources expire after 72 hours unless claimed. These are exactly the side effects and lifecycle facts an agent needs before calling a provisioning tool.

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?

Everything is packed into one dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the action and resource and every clause carries information (providers, instant mode, expiry, .env.local write, return shape). It borders on run-on and would read better split into two sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return shape (key names only) and the persistence side effect, plus the temporary-resource lifecycle. What is left out is behavior when a service already exists for the folder and any account/permission prerequisites for the connected-account path.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33%, with 'instant' entirely undocumented there, and the description compensates by explaining what instant: true produces and its expiration. The provider enum is given semantics by mapping supabase/neon to databases and upstash to Redis. Only the interaction between instant and provider restrictions is stated loosely.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ('Create a database ... or Redis ... for a site folder') and maps providers to product types, so an agent knows exactly what gets provisioned. It does not name any sibling tool, so it stops short of the explicit differentiation a 5 requires.

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?

It clearly explains the two modes: provisioning on the person's connected account versus passing instant: true for a free temporary instance. It also scopes instant mode to Neon and Upstash. It stops short of routing the agent to alternatives such as a claim tool, though 'unless claimed' hints at that follow-up.

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