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

scratch-unified-mcp

by blessed0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sb3 Push To Scratch

sb3_push_to_scratch

Save the open Scratch project to scratch.mit.edu after user confirmation, syncing local edits to the online version.

Instructions

Save the open project back to scratch.mit.edu (confirm-gated). (proxied)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sb3_push_to_scratch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNo
projectIdNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosures. It adds 'confirm-gated' and 'proxied', which are useful, but it omits key behavior for a write/push operation: authentication requirements, remote side effects, reversibility, or what happens when confirm is false.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with useful parentheticals. There is no filler, but it is so terse that it sacrifices important behavioral and parameter 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 an external push/mutation tool with no annotations and low parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It does not state prerequisites, what 'proxied' means for execution, or what projectId refers to. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value concerns but not the other gaps.

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 needs to explain the parameters. 'confirm-gated' loosely hints at the confirm boolean, but projectId is not explained at all. This is insufficient for an agent to know how to set or omit projectId.

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?

Description states a clear action and target: 'Save the open project back to scratch.mit.edu'. This is specific and distinguishes it from generic save tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling save/push tools like sb3_save_project or project_save_to_cloud.

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 wording implies this is for persisting the currently open project to scratch.mit.edu, and 'confirm-gated' hints that confirmation is needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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