Skip to main content
Glama
gh-autostar
by Yolgz-sys

configure_autostar

Adjust auto-star settings: toggle starring, switch modes, set daily caps, and add or remove repositories from allowlists and denylists so stars match your intent.

Instructions

修改自动点星配置:开关、模式、每日上限、白名单/黑名单增删。用户要求"别点星了""只给某几个仓库点"时使用。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "configure_autostar"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoauto 直接点、confirm 先问用户、dry-run 只记录
enabledNo总开关
dailyCapNo每日上限,0 表示不限制之外的全部拦截
denylistAddNo加入黑名单的仓库,永不点星
allowlistAddNo加入白名单的仓库
denylistRemoveNo
allowlistRemoveNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it mostly restates the parameter list. It does not say whether changes persist, whether they take effect immediately, how allowlist and denylist conflicts resolve, or what the call returns. The mode semantics (auto/confirm/dry-run) live only in the schema, not the description.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the trigger examples. Nothing is redundant, though the second sentence could be folded in more tightly.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage but leaves behavioral questions open: persistence, immediate effect, and allow/deny precedence. Adequate to select the tool, thin for invoking it confidently.

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 coverage is 71%, so the baseline is 3. The description does map its phrases onto all seven parameters, including the add/remove pairs via 增删, which helps for the two undocumented remove parameters. It adds no format detail, however, such as how repositories are delimited in the string parameters.

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 names a specific verb (修改/configure) and resource (自动点星配置) and enumerates the configurable surface: 开关、模式、每日上限、白名单/黑名单增删. This clearly separates it from the per-repo siblings (check_star, ensure_starred, unstar), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 gives two concrete trigger utterances — "别点星了" and "只给某几个仓库点" — which map directly to disabling and to allowlist editing. That is clear when-to-use guidance, but there is no when-not guidance or mention of the sibling tools that handle one-off starring.

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