Skip to main content
Glama

crystal_extension_run

Execute a drop-in extension's declared executable entrypoint inside an isolated crystal context, passing optional arguments and context ID to run extension-specific tasks.

Instructions

Execute a drop-in extension's declared executable entrypoint within isolated crystal context.

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": {
      "extension_id": "<extension_id>"
    },
    "name": "crystal_extension_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argumentsNoCommand-line arguments to pass to the extension executable
crystal_idNoOptional crystal context ID
extension_idYesTarget extension identifier declaring an entrypoint (e.g. 'media')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.3.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions isolated crystal context but does not disclose side effects, permissions, failure modes, whether execution is synchronous, or what isolation actually protects.

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?

The definition is a single efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is notably concise and not padded, though a bit more context could help.

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?

For a tool that executes arbitrary extension entrypoints with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits critical execution semantics and gives no way to distinguish it from crystal_extension_call.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('drop-in extension's declared executable entrypoint') with an isolated context scope. It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish this from the sibling crystal_extension_call, which likely also invokes extensions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus crystal_extension_call, crystal_extension_manage, or crystal_extension_comms. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.