Skip to main content
Glama
abranson

Sailfish Devel MCP

by abranson
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Preflight Sailfish Build

sailfish_build_preflight
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate Sailfish RPM build inputs and return a structured build plan without changing the project.

Instructions

Validate and return a structured Sailfish RPM build plan without mutating the project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
archNo
cleanNo
debugNo
deviceNoOptional configured device to supply default release and architecture.
targetNoRegistered non-snapshot local SDK base target; the build runs in a managed project snapshot.
backendNoauto
no_pullNo
releaseNo
timeoutNoCommand timeout in seconds.
local_sdkNoInstalled sdk-chroot path under /srv/mer; defaults to paths.local_sdk.
all_archesNo
pull_policyNoalways
no_vcs_applyNoOmit for backend default; false explicitly enables VCS application.
project_pathYes
snapshot_keyNoStable logical SDK snapshot key (for example one shared by all worktrees of an ESR generation). Omit to share ordinary builds; custom inputs infer an ESR-aware key. Supply a project key when repository policy requires isolation.
artifacts_dirNo
local_rpms_dirNo
snapshot_packageNoAdditional package to prepare in the project snapshot; may be repeated in the request.
permission_fallbackNoerror
snapshot_repositoryNoAdditional [ALIAS=]URL repository to prepare in the project snapshot; may contain multiple values.
allow_untrusted_rpmsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces 'without mutating' and adds that a structured plan is returned, but it does not describe permissions, network access, or other runtime behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the action, result, and key constraint in one pass.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 21 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully orient an agent. It says a structured plan is returned but does not cover parameter semantics or return shape, leaving substantial gaps for a complex tool.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 21 parameters with only 38% description coverage, and the description mentions no parameter at all. For a tool with this many configuration options, the description provides no guidance on what any parameter means or how to use them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: validate and return a structured Sailfish RPM build plan. The phrase 'without mutating the project' distinguishes it from sibling tools like sailfish_build_rpm, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The term 'Preflight' implies use before an actual build, and 'without mutating' suggests a safe inspection step. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of sailfish_build_rpm or other alternatives.

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