Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
clawmem-mcp-server

clawmem-mcp-server

Official
by clawmem-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

collaboration_repo_collaborator_set

Grant or update a user's direct repository access with a specified permission level. Requires confirmation for write operations.

Instructions

Grant (or update) a user's direct access to a repo. Write operation: requires confirmed=true.

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": {
      "username": "<username>",
      "permission": "<permission>"
    },
    "name": "collaboration_repo_collaborator_set"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNo
usernameYes
permissionYes
confirmedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.6

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It notes it's a write operation and mentions a requirement, but fails to disclose what happens on conflict, required caller permissions, or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with the core action.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete; it lacks prerequisite info, return details, and error handling.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only adds meaning for 'confirmed', leaving repo, username, and permission unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: 'Grant (or update) a user's direct access to a repo.' It distinguishes from siblings like remove and inspect by focusing on setting access.

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 description provides a context hint ('Write operation: requires confirmed=true') but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or specify when to use this tool instead of others.

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