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

scratch-unified-mcp

by blessed0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sb3 Share Project

sb3_share_project

Publish a Scratch project to make it public, using a confirmation gate to avoid unintended sharing.

Instructions

Publish the project so it is public (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_share_project"
  }
}

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
Behavior3/5

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

The description does disclose two behavioral traits: the action is confirm-gated and proxied. With no annotations provided, this is useful but thin. It does not mention consequences of publishing, whether it is reversible, or what authorization is needed, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action. However, the parentheticals '(confirm-gated)' and '(proxied)' are cryptic and slightly under-specified, making the structure efficient but not fully self-explanatory.

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 state-changing publish action with two parameters and no annotation coverage, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot tell how to trigger the confirmation, what projectId should be, or what 'proxied' means operationally. The output schema exists, but it does not make up for missing invocation context.

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 for the bare input schema. It indirectly explains the confirm parameter via 'confirm-gated,' but it never explains projectId, its default, or whether it can refer to the currently open project. This is not enough for reliable parameter use.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Publish the project so it is public.' This is clear and action-oriented. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like sb3_push_to_scratch or project_save_to_cloud, so it misses the top score.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'confirm-gated' hints at a required confirmation step, but it does not explain the workflow context, prerequisites, or when a different sharing/publishing tool should be chosen.

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