Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Edgegap MCP Server

Edgegap MCP Server

Official
by edgegap
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Show this Edgegap MCP server's configuration

edgegap_context
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reports the Edgegap API endpoint, server mode, active guardrails, and token status so you can confirm session permissions before billable actions or troubleshoot token failures.

Instructions

Report which Edgegap API this server talks to, its version, whether it is the local or hosted server, and the guardrails in force: read-only mode, application allowlist, max_duration ceiling, the agent deployment cap, the tag forced onto every deployment, and which tools support dry_run. Also says whether this session has a usable token and, if not, why and how to fix it. Call it first when unsure what this session is allowed to do, before anything billable, or when tool calls fail with a token problem. Makes no API call unless check_token is true, and never shows the token.

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": "edgegap_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
check_tokenNoMake one read-only API call (list one application) to confirm Edgegap accepts the token. Default false.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serverNo
api_hostNo
read_onlyNo
transportNo
guardrailsNo
skills_packNo
api_base_urlNo
forced_deploy_tagNo
max_duration_ceiling_minutesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.12.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / check_token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Make one read-only API call (list one application) to confirm Edgegap accepts the token. Default false.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "api_base_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "api_host": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "forced_deploy_tag": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "guardrails": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "max_duration_ceiling_minutes": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "read_only": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "server": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "skills_pack": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "transport": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Addedv0.5.2

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotent, and the description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses the conditional side effect ('makes no API call unless check_token is true') and the security guarantee ('never shows the token'). It also explains that failure paths return the reason and a fix, which is behavioral context the schema cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary resource (which API/version/mode), then guardrails, then the token note, then the call conditions. Dense but every clause carries information; the long guardrail list in the first sentence is the only mild bloat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema, full annotation coverage, and 100% parameter description coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns conceptually, when to call it, cost implications, and the token non-disclosure guarantee.

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 the single parameter already documents the one-read-only-call behavior. The description's 'makes no API call unless check_token is true' reinforces but does not extend the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates exactly what is reported: API target, version, local vs hosted, guardrails, and token usability. No sibling tool does anything similar, so the resource is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives three explicit trigger conditions: 'call it first when unsure what this session is allowed to do', 'before anything billable', and 'when tool calls fail with a token problem'. That is a clear when-to-use rule with concrete situations rather than vague advice.

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