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

scratch-unified-mcp

by blessed0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sb3 Patch Target

sb3_patch_target

Apply an RFC 6902 JSON Patch to update specific parts of a target. Pass the patch as a JSON string to modify the project's structure precisely.

Instructions

Apply RFC 6902 JSON Patch (as JSON string) to a target. (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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "patch": "<patch>"
    },
    "name": "sb3_patch_target"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
patchYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only adds '(proxied)' and the patch format. It does not mention whether the target must already exist, whether changes persist, what happens on invalid patch syntax, or whether this is a mutating operation beyond the verb 'apply'.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and format, though its brevity comes at the cost of missing usage and behavior context.

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, low schema coverage, and an output schema not described, the definition is too sparse. An agent would not know how to identify the target, what a valid patch payload looks like in practice, or what response to expect.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies that patch is a JSON string. The 'name' parameter is unexplained, leaving the agent to infer that it identifies the target.

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 names a specific action ('Apply RFC 6902 JSON Patch') and a clear resource ('a target'), which differentiates it from most sibling tools that set individual properties or read target state. However, 'target' is not explicitly defined as a sprite/stage or by a parameter, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sb3_set_variable, sb3_rename_target, or sb3_get_target. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions under which patching is the right choice.

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