Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
scratch-unified-mcp

scratch-unified-mcp

by blessed0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sb3 Git Pack

sb3_git_pack

Convert a diffable directory back into an .sb3 Scratch project file to restore a project from version-controlled source.

Instructions

Pack a diffable directory back into an .sb3.

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": {
      "project_dir": "<project_dir>",
      "sb3_path": "<sb3_path>"
    },
    "name": "sb3_git_pack"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sb3_pathYes
project_dirYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether an existing .sb3 file is overwritten, whether the directory is modified, or any other side effects beyond 'packing.'

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. The core operation is stated immediately and the wording is efficiently compact.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and undocumented parameters, this description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. An agent cannot confidently determine source vs destination semantics, existing-file behavior, or expected input formats without additional inference.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage and the properties are only bare names: 'sb3_path' and 'project_dir.' The description does not clarify which parameter is the source directory and which is the output archive, leaving the direction of the operation ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Pack a diffable directory back into an .sb3.' The word 'back' implies this is the inverse of unpacking, which helps distinguish it from sb3_git_unpack, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 phrase 'diffable directory' and 'back' imply this tool is used after unpacking or editing a project directory, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. Usage context is suggested rather than stated.

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