Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Appo MCP

Appo MCP

Official
by appolabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

scaffold_feature

Generate complete Appo SDK feature integrations for React—hook, component, types, and optional tests—with instructions to add push, biometrics, camera, location, storage, share, and network.

Instructions

Scaffold complete feature integration including hook, component, and types. Returns multiple files with integration instructions.

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": {
      "feature": "<feature>"
    },
    "name": "scaffold_feature"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
featureYesThe SDK feature to scaffold
directoryNoTarget directory path for file suggestions
includeTestsNoInclude test file scaffolding (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions returning multiple files with instructions, but does not disclose potential side effects like file creation or overwriting, or any authentication requirements.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action and the outcome. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given the tool's three parameters and lack of output schema or annotations, the description covers the main functionality but omits details like the includeTests parameter and the exact nature of returned files. Adequate but not thorough.

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 100%, and the description does not add meaningful detail beyond the parameter descriptions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds little to parameter understanding.

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 the tool's purpose: to scaffold a complete feature integration including hook, component, and types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_component and generate_hook which handle individual parts.

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 description implies usage for full feature scaffolding but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or conditions.

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