Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PatchWarden

PatchWarden

by jiezeng2004-design
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_project_policy

Retrieve the effective project policy from .patchwarden/project-policy.json, with safe defaults when missing. Clarify repository permission boundaries without expanding allow-lists.

Instructions

Read the bounded effective .patchwarden/project-policy.json summary for a repository. Missing policy returns safe defaults. Project policy never expands PatchWarden command allow-lists, workspace confinement, sensitive-path blocking, or watcher/audit boundaries.

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": {
      "repo_path": "<repo_path>"
    },
    "name": "get_project_policy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_pathYesRepository path inside workspaceRoot.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.5.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it reads a file, returns safe defaults if missing, and explicitly states what the policy does not expand. No hidden side effects or assumptions.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second adds critical behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what it does, edge case behavior (missing policy returns defaults), and limitations (what it doesn't affect). No 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?

The schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for repo_path. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool reads a specific file (.patchwarden/project-policy.json) and returns a summary, with a clear verb (Read) and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on policy reading.

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?

The description implies when to use (to read project policy) and provides important context about what the policy does not affect, but lacks explicit 'use this when' or alternative guidance.

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