Skip to main content
Glama
jigyasudham

veto

by jigyasudham
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

veto_env_setup

Scans your code to find required environment variables and config files, then generates a .env.example and setup guide. Optionally writes the file without overwriting existing ones.

Instructions

Finds the environment variables the code actually reads and the project's config files, then generates a .env.example and a step-by-step setup guide. With write_files it writes .env.example — never over an existing one unless overwrite is true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
overwriteNoWith write_files, replace an existing .env.example (default false).
project_dirYesAbsolute path to project.
write_filesNoIf true, write the generated .env.example to disk (default false). An existing file is kept unless overwrite is true.
agent_responseNoPhase 2 response from the host AI (JSON). Pass this back when prompted by the server to complete the agentic loop.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.8.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / overwrite
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "With write_files, replace an existing .env.example (default false).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / write_files / description
      Previous value: -"If true, write .env.example to disk (default false)."New value: +"If true, write the generated .env.example to disk (default false). An existing file is kept unless overwrite is true."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / agent_response
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Phase 2 response from the host AI (JSON). Pass this back when prompted by the server to complete the agentic loop.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observedv2.7.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies that writes only happen with write_files and never clobber an existing file unless overwrite is true, which reinforces the non-destructive hint. Auth, rate-limit, or return-shape details are absent, keeping it below a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one safety-relevant caveat. No filler, no repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a mutating tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile and with no output schema, the description conveys the essential outcome (generated .env.example + guide). The notable gap is the agent_response 'Phase 2' agentic-loop parameter, which the description never mentions, though the schema documents it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the write_files/overwrite interaction but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, and it does not address the agent_response parameter (the agentic-loop input) at all.

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 names specific verbs and resources: it 'Finds the environment variables the code actually reads and the project's config files, then generates a .env.example and a step-by-step setup guide.' This is concrete and clearly distinguishable from any sibling in the list. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from any named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no when-to-use context, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., 'run this before first commit when setting up a new project'). No alternative tool is referenced, so the agent must infer the invocation context entirely.

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