scratch-unified-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Sb3 Open Scratch Project

sb3_open_scratch_project

Retrieve any Scratch project from scratch.mit.edu using its project ID, enabling direct editing. Solves accessing projects for modification.

Instructions

Download a scratch.mit.edu project by id for editing. (proxied)

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "sb3_open_scratch_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the operation downloads from scratch.mit.edu, is proxied, and is intended for editing. It does not mention whether the current project is replaced, whether authentication is required, or whether any local state is mutated.

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 one short sentence plus a parenthetical, with no filler. The primary action, target resource, and useful caveat ('proxied') are front-loaded and each word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action well enough to guess correct usage. It is incomplete in that it lacks id-format details and fails to guide selection among the many sibling open/download tools.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description only says 'by id', without clarifying the expected format (e.g., numeric Scratch project ID, URL, or project name). The single parameter name 'projectId' is helpful, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 ('Download') and identifies the resource ('a scratch.mit.edu project by id') and purpose ('for editing'), which makes the operation concrete. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like sb3_open_project or project_open, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sb3_open_project, project_open, project_download, or spy_open_project. 'For editing' hints at intent but does not state conditions, exclusions, or preferred usage contexts.

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

Deploy Server