Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Genio520 ISP MCP

Genio520 ISP MCP

by eric612
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

commit_candidate

Commit specific Genio source files directly. Ensure precision by applying changes only to a listed set of individual files, preventing accidental inclusion of unrelated staged files.

Instructions

Commit exactly the listed individual Genio source files. Never operates on IMG_ENHANCE or TTC, never pushes, and refuses unrelated staged files.

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": {
      "files": "<files>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "commit_candidate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesYes
messageYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context — no push, rejection of unrelated staged files, and hard exclusions for IMG_ENHANCE/TTC. It stops short of stating auth requirements, return values, or failure behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action first and the negative constraints trailing. No filler or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the description covers scope and prohibitions but omits prerequisites (staging), success/failure outcome, and message semantics. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies 'files' means individual Genio source files listed explicitly, but says nothing about the 'message' parameter or the 80-file/2000-char limits. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb (commit) plus precise resource scope: 'exactly the listed individual Genio source files'. It is clearly distinguishable from the read/edit/diff siblings (edit_source_file, get_source_diff, list_source_files) which do not commit.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives explicit exclusions: never operates on IMG_ENHANCE or TTC, never pushes, refuses unrelated staged files. This tells the agent when the tool will reject a call, but it never names an alternative tool or the positive precondition (files must be staged) directly.

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