Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Puppet Master

Puppet Master

by khr898
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

puppet_reject

Rejects a staged patch after review and records it as a failed attempt, enabling you to decline unsuitable changes while preserving verification history.

Instructions

Reject a staged patch after review; counts as a failed attempt.

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>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "puppet_reject"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rootYes
reasonYes
patch_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait beyond the name — the rejection is recorded as a failed attempt — but omits whether the patch is discarded or retained, what permission is needed, and whether the action is reversible.

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; the verb and consequence come first. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than deliberate brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions — the description should explain permissions, side effects, and at least the shape of the three required args. It does only the minimum.

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?

Three required parameters exist with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. It does not clarify that 'root' is a workspace/repo path, what format 'patch_id' takes, or whether 'reason' is stored or surfaced to the patch author.

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 ('reject a staged patch') and adds the outcome ('counts as a failed attempt'). It implicitly contrasts with puppet_apply but never names a sibling, so the agent must infer the pairing rather than being told.

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?

'after review' gives implied timing, and 'counts as a failed attempt' hints at a workflow consequence, but there is no explicit statement of when to reject versus retry, nor any reference to sibling tools like puppet_check or puppet_apply.

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