Orbit-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

add_server_to_pack

Add a server to an existing pack to group servers for organized access. Specify the pack name and server name to update the pack's composition.

Instructions

Add a server to an existing pack

Args: pack_name: Name of the pack server_name: Name of the server to add

Returns: Dictionary with success status and operation details

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": {
      "pack_name": "<pack_name>",
      "server_name": "<server_name>"
    },
    "name": "add_server_to_pack"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pack_name`	Yes
`server_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the return dictionary and does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or failure conditions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured with an opening sentence, Args, and Returns sections. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the basics but misses usage context and behavioral details. It is adequate but incomplete given the lack of annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section provides basic explanations like 'Name of the server to add', which adds meaning beyond the schema titles but remains minimal.

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?

The description clearly states 'Add a server to an existing pack' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_pack and remove_server_from_pack by specifying 'existing pack'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The phrase 'to an existing pack' implies the pack must exist, but this is not stated as usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.