Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
publish-pilot-mcp

publish-pilot-mcp

by acus9345
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

scaffold_project

Creates a new project structure with source, tests, README, LICENSE, CHANGELOG, .gitignore, manifest, and optional CI/release workflows without overwriting existing files.

Instructions

Create a project: source, test, README, LICENSE, CHANGELOG, .gitignore, manifest (0.1.0). With repoUrl, also CI and release workflows. Never overwrites files.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cliNoAdd a CLI entry point
dirYes
nameYes
targetNoDefault both with repoUrl, else package. repo: never published to a registry
licenseNoMIT
privateNoPrivate repo: Ubuntu-only CI to save Actions minutes
repoUrlNohttps://github.com/owner/repo
registryYes
workflowsNoDefault follows target
descriptionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed11 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • changedInput schema / properties / cli / description
      Previous value: -"Add a command-line entry point with --help and --version (npm, pypi)."New value: +"Add a CLI entry point"
    • removedInput schema / properties / description / description
      Removed value: -"One-line description."
    • removedInput schema / properties / dir / description
      Removed value: -"Project folder (absolute path, or relative to the server's working directory)."
    • removedInput schema / properties / license / description
      Removed value: -"SPDX license id."
    • removedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Removed value: -"Package name."
    • changedInput schema / properties / private / description
      Previous value: -"The GitHub repo will be private: CI runs on Ubuntu only to save paid Actions minutes."New value: +"Private repo: Ubuntu-only CI to save Actions minutes"
    • removedInput schema / properties / registry / description
      Removed value: -"Package registry: npm, pypi (PyPI) or crates (crates.io)."
    • removedInput schema / properties / repoUrl / pattern
      Removed value: -"^https:\\/\\/github\\.com\\/[\\w.-]+\\/[\\w.-]+$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / target / description
      Previous value: -"What will be published. Default 'both' when repoUrl is set, otherwise 'package'."New value: +"Default both with repoUrl, else package. repo: never published to a registry"
    • changedInput schema / properties / workflows / description
      Previous value: -"Default with repoUrl: ci+release for target 'both', ci+repo-release for 'repo', ci for 'package'."New value: +"Default follows target"
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / private
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "The GitHub repo will be private: CI runs on Ubuntu only to save paid Actions minutes.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / target
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "What will be published. Default 'both' when repoUrl is set, otherwise 'package'.",
+  "enum": [
+    "repo",
+    "package",
+    "both"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / workflows / description
      Previous value: -"Default: ci+release when repoUrl is set."New value: +"Default with repoUrl: ci+release for target 'both', ci+repo-release for 'repo', ci for 'package'."
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavioral facts beyond that — "Never overwrites files" (idempotent/safe on re-run) and conditional CI/release generation driven by repoUrl. It doesn't say what happens on collision (skip vs. error) or whether the directory is created when absent, which keeps it below 5.

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 telegraphic sentences, front-loaded with the artifact list followed by the conditional and the safety guarantee; nothing is wasted. It is clipped to the point of being slightly under-specified rather than verbose.

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 10-parameter scaffolding tool with only one annotation and no output schema, the description covers generated artifacts and the repoUrl branch, but omits how target/registry/private interact, collision behavior, and whether the target directory must pre-exist — gaps an agent would hit on first call.

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 50% across 10 parameters. The description explains one parameter's downstream effect (repoUrl triggers workflows) and stamps the manifest version, but says nothing about how target, registry, private, cli, or workflows shape the output — leaving several enums fully dependent on terse schema text.

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?

It gives a specific verb ("Create") plus the exact artifact set (source, test, README, LICENSE, CHANGELOG, .gitignore, manifest at 0.1.0), so an agent can tell precisely what lands on disk. It doesn't name a sibling to contrast with (preflight, add_workflows, create_github_repo), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 conditional "With repoUrl, also CI and release workflows" implies when the richer scaffold applies, but there's no statement of when to use this vs. add_workflows, preflight, or create_github_repo, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., empty dir requirement).

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