Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

keep_proposal_copy

Destructive

Saves a proposed fix copy as one of your designs; optionally archives a chosen design to make room on a full Free plan.

Instructions

Keep your copy made to propose a fix as one of your designs.

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": {
      "design_id": "<design_id>"
    },
    "name": "keep_proposal_copy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
design_idYesYour copy's design id.
make_room_forNoOn a Free plan whose designs are full, the design the person chose to archive so the copy fits. Empty asks nothing. Default: "".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description does not contradict them, but it adds only that the copy becomes one of your designs. It does not explain the destructive archiving possible via make_room_for or the Free-plan quota.

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?

It is a single sentence with no filler, but the phrasing is awkward and somewhat ambiguous. Still, it is appropriately front-loaded.

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 low-complexity two-parameter tool with full schema descriptions and annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits workflow guidance and the destructive implication, which the schema and annotations partially cover.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are described there; the description only loosely clarifies that design_id refers to the copy made for a fix, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 the verb 'Keep' and the object 'your copy made to propose a fix' as a design, which is specific enough to distinguish this from generic design creation. It does not explicitly contrast it with siblings such as keep_design or propose_fix_to_public_design.

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?

'made to propose a fix' implies the copy came from a proposal workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as keep_design. The agent must infer the workflow context.

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