Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
webEmbedding

webEmbedding

by jongko54
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

build_reproduction_bundle

Converts a capture bundle into an exact-reuse or reproduction bundle, persisting embed files when a trusted reuse path exists so captured pages can be rebuilt reliably.

Instructions

Turn a capture bundle into an exact-reuse or reproduction bundle with persisted embed files when a trusted reuse path exists.

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": {
      "capture_bundle": "<capture_bundle>"
    },
    "name": "build_reproduction_bundle"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
output_dirNoDirectory to write capture artifacts, generated files, and reports into; created if missing.
capture_bundleYesCapture bundle object returned by capture_reference_bundle.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.13
    • addedInput schema / properties / capture_bundle / description
      Added value: +"Capture bundle object returned by capture_reference_bundle."
    • addedInput schema / properties / output_dir / description
      Added value: +"Directory to write capture artifacts, generated files, and reports into; created if missing."
  2. First observedv0.3.12

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write operation, so the safety profile is already covered. The description usefully adds that embed files are persisted to disk, but it omits what happens when no trusted reuse path exists (error? fallback?) and doesn't explain why re-running is non-idempotent or what gets overwritten in output_dir.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, leading with the transformation rather than the condition. The trailing conditional clause is densely compressed and slightly vague, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what a caller gets back, and it only loosely does — a bundle plus persisted embed files. Given a write tool with a nested-object input, it could do more about failure modes and output location, but the core action and artifact are present.

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%, with output_dir and capture_bundle both documented in the schema, including the note that output_dir is created if missing. The description only restates the capture-bundle input and adds nothing about the nested object's expected shape or how it maps to the produced bundle; baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: it turns a 'capture bundle' into an 'exact-reuse or reproduction bundle' and persists embed files. The direction of transformation is clear, but terms like 'exact-reuse bundle' and 'trusted reuse path' are opaque jargon, and no sibling tool (e.g., build_rebuild_scaffold or plan_reproduction_path) is named to sharpen the distinction.

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 clause 'when a trusted reuse path exists' is a gating precondition, which is more than nothing. However, it never says how an agent determines that a trusted reuse path exists (presumably via classify_clone_mode or plan_reproduction_path), nor when to prefer build_rebuild_scaffold instead. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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