Skip to main content
Glama
Wolfe-Jam

.FAF Context

by Wolfe-Jam
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

faf_git

Destructive

Author a project.faf from any public GitHub repository URL by fetching the repo and extracting its stack and context. Bootstrap project context without cloning locally.

Instructions

Author a project.faf from any public GitHub repository URL — fetches the repo and extracts its stack and context. Returns the authored .faf. Use this to bootstrap context for a project you have the URL for but not cloned locally.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesGitHub repository URL (e.g., https://github.com/owner/repo or owner/repo)
pathNoOutput directory for the authored project.faf. If omitted, returns content without writing.
forceNoOverwrite an existing project.faf at path (without it, faf_git refuses)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.3.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / force
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Overwrite an existing project.faf at path (without it, faf_git refuses)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"Output directory for generated project.faf. If omitted, returns content without writing."New value: +"Output directory for the authored project.faf. If omitted, returns content without writing."
  2. First observedv2.1.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful scope by saying it fetches a public repo and returns an authored .faf, but it does not explain the write/overwrite behavior, refusal semantics, auth needs, or rate limits beyond what the annotations and schema already imply.

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?

Three compact sentences/clauses, front-loaded with the action and source, then the return value, then the usage context. No filler material.

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 appropriately says it returns the authored .faf. It leaves the optional path-writing and force-overwrite behavior to the schema, which is acceptable because those parameters are fully described there and the annotations signal destructiveness.

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%, so the schema already documents url, path, and force in detail. The description mentions the GitHub URL source and the returned artifact but does not add syntax, formatting, or behavioral meaning 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?

States a specific verb and artifact ('Author a project.faf') and a specific source ('from any public GitHub repository URL'), then clarifies the extraction behavior. The final sentence distinguishes the use case from local-clone workflows, so an agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: to bootstrap context for a project with a known URL but no local clone. It gives clear context but does not name or rule out specific sibling alternatives such as faf_init or local workflow tools.

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