chatgpt-local-coding-agent

by everlastingQAQ

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

fs_release

Release an inspected file range after verifying the model's purpose; exact mode requires local confirmation.

Instructions

Release an inspected range after model purpose verification. Exact mode also requires local confirmation.

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": {
      "inspection_id": "<inspection_id>",
      "purpose": "<purpose>"
    },
    "name": "fs_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`mode`	No	redacted
`purpose`	Yes
`inspection_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With all annotation hints false, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that Exact mode requires local confirmation, but it does not explain what releasing a range does, whether the effect is reversible, or what happens when purpose verification fails.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and condition, with no filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 tool with no useful annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description is under-specified: it lacks mode semantics, the relationship to fs_inspect, and the release workflow beyond the confirmation requirement. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for those gaps.

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 add meaning for the parameters. It only hints at an 'Exact mode' concept for the mode parameter; 'purpose' and 'inspection_id' remain effectively unexplained, and 'redacted' is not described.

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 uses a specific verb ('Release') with a clear resource ('an inspected range') and a precondition ('after model purpose verification'), which differentiates it from related fs_* inspection/read tools. It does not name the sibling tool explicitly, but the action is distinct.

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?

It states a clear timing/condition: use this after an inspection has been performed and the purpose has been verified. It also warns that Exact mode requires local confirmation, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or explain when redacted mode is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server