Skip to main content
Glama
hackle-io

hackle-mcp

Official
by hackle-io

remote-config-create

Generate an empty remote configuration to manage feature targeting and values in Hackle. Specify key, data type, and user criteria for precise control over A/B testing parameters.

Instructions

Creates an empty remote config. It is recommended to update an existing RC first if there is an associated RC with the one you want to create since the total number of RC is limited.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:369-396 (registration)
    Registration of the 'remote-config-create' tool using McpServer.tool, including inline schema and handler.
    server.tool(
      'remote-config-create',
      'Creates an empty remote config. It is recommended to update an existing RC first if there is an associated RC with the one you want to create since the total number of RC is limited.',
      {
        body: z.object({
          key: z.string().nonempty().describe("Remote config's name."),
          description: z.string().optional(),
          dataType: z.enum(['STRING', 'JSON', 'NUMBER', 'BOOLEAN']).describe("Type of Remote Config's value."),
          userIdentifierCriteria: z
            .string()
            .optional()
            .default('$deviceId')
            .describe(
              'User identifier criteria for targeting. You can use criteria provided by Hackle($deviceId, $userId) or your own criteria created at Hackle dashboard website.',
            ),
        }),
      },
      async ({ body }) => {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: JSON.stringify(await WebClient.post(`/api/v1/remote-configs`, body)),
            },
          ],
        };
      },
    );
  • Handler function that performs the POST request to create a remote config via WebClient.post and returns the JSON response as text content.
    async ({ body }) => {
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify(await WebClient.post(`/api/v1/remote-configs`, body)),
          },
        ],
      };
    },
  • Input schema using Zod, validating the body object with fields: key (required string), description (optional string), dataType (enum), userIdentifierCriteria (optional string default '$deviceId').
    {
      body: z.object({
        key: z.string().nonempty().describe("Remote config's name."),
        description: z.string().optional(),
        dataType: z.enum(['STRING', 'JSON', 'NUMBER', 'BOOLEAN']).describe("Type of Remote Config's value."),
        userIdentifierCriteria: z
          .string()
          .optional()
          .default('$deviceId')
          .describe(
            'User identifier criteria for targeting. You can use criteria provided by Hackle($deviceId, $userId) or your own criteria created at Hackle dashboard website.',
          ),
      }),
    },
  • WebClient.post static method, which handles the HTTP POST request to the Hackle API endpoint, used by the tool handler.
    public static async post<T = unknown>(
      path: string,
      body?: unknown,
      options?: Omit<RequestInit, 'method' | 'body'>,
    ): Promise<T> {
      return this.request<T>('POST', path, {
        ...options,
        body: JSON.stringify(body),
        headers: {
          ...options?.headers,
        },
      });
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'the total number of RC is limited,' which is useful context about resource constraints, but doesn't describe what 'creates' entails (e.g., permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, response format, or error conditions). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences and reasonably concise, but the second sentence about updating existing RCs feels somewhat tangential to the core purpose. It could be more front-loaded with essential information, though it avoids excessive verbosity.

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 creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and poor parameter documentation (0% schema coverage with no description compensation), the description is incomplete. It mentions a limitation but lacks details on behavior, parameters, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for informed tool usage.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description provides no information about parameters, while the input schema has 0% description coverage (only enum values for dataType are described). With 1 required parameter (body) containing nested properties, the description fails to add any meaning beyond what the bare schema provides, resulting in poor parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('creates an empty remote config') and identifies the resource ('remote config'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remote-config-update' beyond mentioning an alternative action.

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 some usage guidance by recommending to 'update an existing RC first if there is an associated RC' due to total number limitations, which implies context for when to consider alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus other remote-config tools or provide clear exclusions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/hackle-io/hackle-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server