Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bridge-mcp-server

bridge-mcp-server

by jianghua-developer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Generate Multi

generate_multi

Generate multi-target projects by applying registered combination templates and validated parameters to a specified output directory.

Instructions

多端组合生成（shell-out 桥 generate）：combo 须在注册表内，params ⊆ 原生参数集。

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": {
      "combo": "<combo>",
      "params": "<params>",
      "target_dir": "<target_dir>"
    },
    "name": "generate_multi"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
comboYes
paramsYes
skip_tasksNo
target_dirYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It usefully discloses that the call shells out to a 'generate' bridge, but says nothing about side effects on target_dir, whether existing output is overwritten, what happens on partial failure, or how errors from the registry check surface.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical aside; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a tool with 0% schema coverage, but as a matter of structure it is clean.

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 shell-out tool that writes into target_dir with an open-ended nested params object, the description is missing critical context: generation output, file/overwrite behavior and failure modes. No output schema exists to offload that information.

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% with 4 params, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'combo' must exist in a registry and that 'params' keys must be a subset of the native parameter set, but 'skip_tasks' is unexplained and 'target_dir' is only implied by the shell-out framing.

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?

States a specific action and resource: combination generation across multiple endpoints ('多端组合生成'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling generate_single. The parenthetical '(shell-out 桥 generate)' hints at the implementation path but does not fully clarify what the output actually is.

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 gives preconditions ('combo 须在注册表内', 'params ⊆ 原生参数集') but never says when to choose this tool over generate_single or how to discover a valid combo (e.g. via list_combos/get_combo_params). Constraints are stated, usage routing is not.

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