Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kit-mcp

kit-mcp

by luanpdd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

install

Register the kit-mcp server into your IDE's MCP configuration to enable planning workflows in Claude, Cursor, Codex, Antigravity, or Windsurf.

Instructions

Register this kit-mcp server into an IDE's MCP config (Claude/Cursor/Codex/Antigravity/Windsurf).

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "install"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pkgNonpm package name (only with via=npx). Default: @luanpdd/kit-mcp
viaNoHow the IDE will invoke the server. Default: local (this clone)
nameNoServer name in the IDE config. Default: kit
forceNoOverwrite existing entry with same name
scopeNoDefault: user
actionYes
targetNoIDE id. Use action=targets to list.
projectRootNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.29.0
  2. Removedv1.22.0
  3. Addedv1.21.0
  4. Removedv1.15.0
  5. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; the description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., config file modification), required permissions, or reversibility. This lacks sufficient transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous words.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotation support, the description is too brief. It omits important context such as what 'dry-run' does, how to list targets, or default behaviors for optional parameters.

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 coverage is 75%, but the description adds no information about parameters. It does not explain the meaning, defaults, or relationships of 'action', 'target', 'scope', etc., beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Register' and the resource 'kit-mcp server into an IDE's MCP config', listing specific IDEs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 description implies usage for IDE registration but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'auto-install' or other tooling. Context is clear but exclusions are missing.

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