Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Loopy MCP Server

Loopy MCP Server

by hotkid61
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

save_loop

Save AI agent loops to LOOPS.md with name, description, and prompt. Document and reuse bounded agent workflows.

Instructions

Save a loop to the project's LOOPS.md file

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "description": "<description>",
      "prompt": "<prompt>"
    },
    "name": "save_loop"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesLoop name
promptYesThe loop prompt/instructions
sourceNoOptional source URL if adapted from published loop
descriptionYesOne-sentence description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention whether saving overwrites or appends, what permissions are needed, or any side effects like modifying existing files.

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 very concise at one sentence, but it is too minimal to be considered efficient. It lacks useful detail that could be added without significant length.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not address important behaviors like duplicate handling, validation, or file state, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Save' and the resource 'a loop to the project's LOOPS.md file', indicating a write operation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'craft_loop' (creation) and 'run_loop' (execution), though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions for appropriate use. It merely states the action without 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