Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Puppet Master

Puppet Master

by khr898
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

puppet_apply

Applies a staged Flint patch to the working tree after you confirm it, refusing if checks failed or the patch was modified.

Instructions

Apply a staged Flint patch to the working tree. Only call after you have read the patch file yourself and agree with it. Refuses if checks failed or the patch was modified.

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": {
      "root": "<root>",
      "patch_id": "<patch_id>"
    },
    "name": "puppet_apply"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rootYes
patch_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses refusal conditions (checks failed, patch modified), but says nothing about reversibility, atomicity, which files change, or whether the change is staged or committed — significant gaps for a mutation 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the precondition and the refusal rule. No filler.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the action and its guards but leaves the meaning of 'staged Flint patch', the role of 'root', and the response behavior unexplained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies patch_id identifies the staged patch, but 'root' is never explained, and there is no format or constraint detail for either required parameter.

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: applies a staged Flint patch to the working tree. The scope (working tree, staged patch) distinguishes it from puppet_read/puppet_write, but it never names a sibling tool explicitly, so routing relies on inference.

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?

Gives a clear precondition: only call after reading the patch file yourself and agreeing with it. It does not mention when to use puppet_check, puppet_reject, or puppet_status instead, so the alternative-path guidance is absent.

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