Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ignition-mcp

ignition-mcp

by jsgorana
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

bridge_install

Install or upgrade the mcp-bridge WebDev project on the Ignition gateway, using a shared HMAC secret and verifying connectivity with a signed ping.

Instructions

Install/upgrade the mcp-bridge WebDev project on the gateway. Mutating, REST plane.

Uses IGNITION_BRIDGE_SECRET as the shared HMAC secret. After import, verifies the bridge responds to a signed ping.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bridge_install"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is mutating, uses a shared secret, and verifies the bridge after upgrade, providing acceptable behavioral context for a simple tool.

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?

The description is extremely concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding necessary details without verbosity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the low complexity, the description covers the main action and post-verification, but omits parameter explanation and any failure handling, making it barely adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not mention the single parameter 'confirm' (0% schema description coverage), leaving the agent to infer its role from the schema alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 installs/upgrades the mcp-bridge WebDev project, uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling bridge_status by noting it is mutating and operates on the REST plane.

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 mentions the use of IGNITION_BRIDGE_SECRET and post-install verification, providing context for usage, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it.

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