Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BitPull

BitPull

by SamuealPK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

bitpull_share_group

Share a group's AI model with the community when it is idle, or stop sharing it, after confirming with the group.

Instructions

Offer the group's model to the community while it is not in use, or stop offering it. Confirm with the person first.

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": {
      "shared": "<shared>"
    },
    "name": "bitpull_share_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
sharedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, while the description adds that this is a community-offering toggle that should only happen while the model is unused, plus human confirmation. It does not explain permissions, effects on existing community users, or whether the change is immediately reversible.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and direction, with no redundant wording. The confirmation instruction is compact and useful.

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 two-parameter toggle, it covers the core operation and a key precondition. Because schema coverage is 0% and there is no output schema, the unexplained id and incomplete boolean mapping leave meaningful gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needs to carry parameter meaning, but it only implies that 'offer ... or stop offering' corresponds to the shared boolean. It never explains the optional id parameter or explicitly maps shared=true/false to offer/stop.

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 clearly identifies a specific operation: toggling whether the group's model is offered to the community, and it distinguishes the two directions ('or stop offering it'). It stops short of naming or contrasting sibling tools such as the start/stop group operations.

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?

It gives useful preconditions ('while it is not in use') and an instruction to confirm with the person first. However, it does not say when to prefer this over related group/model tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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