Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitFerry

GitFerry

by mayank1307
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Inspect a local GitFerry bundle

inspect_bundle
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a local .gitferry bundle, verify checksums and manifest structure, and report contents without modifying files to detect corruption before applying changes.

Instructions

Read a local .gitferry bundle, verify checksums and manifest structure, and report its contents without modifying files. Checksums detect corruption; they do not authenticate the sender.

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": {
      "bundlePath": "<bundlePath>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_bundle"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bundlePathYesAbsolute path to the .gitferry bundle file

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
manifestYes
checksumsVerifiedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.2

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding a non-obvious security caveat the annotations cannot express: checksums detect corruption but do not authenticate the sender. It stops short of saying what happens when verification fails (error vs. partial report), which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first states the action and its read-only scope, the second qualifies the trust level of checksum verification. The scope constraint is front-loaded and nothing is padded or restated from the title.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param), annotations are rich, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, safety, and the checksum trust caveat, leaving only the failure path for an invalid or corrupt bundle unaddressed.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('Absolute path to the .gitferry bundle file'), the schema already carries the semantics. The description reinforces that the bundle is local and .gitferry-typed but adds no path format, relative-path, or existence-precondition detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read a local .gitferry bundle'), then enumerates the sub-operations: verifying checksums, verifying manifest structure, and reporting contents. The phrase 'without modifying files' functionally separates it from apply_bundle, so an agent can place it among its siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the pre-flight read before apply_bundle, but the description never names apply_bundle or pack_changes as alternatives, nor states when not to use it. There is no explicit routing rule, so the agent must reason from the 'read-only' framing.

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