Quiet File Team MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

generate_team_config

Read-onlyIdempotent

Draft reviewed team.conf defaults for a fresh local core, returning normalized roster settings and warnings before manual installation. Produces config text only—no file writes or secret handling.

Instructions

Draft reviewed team.conf defaults for a fresh local core; unlike generate_early_exit, produce roster settings rather than routine instructions. Use before manual installation, not for secrets, arbitrary shell fragments or modifying existing logs. Free offline text computation with no paid API and unbenchmarked short latency. Coordinator must be lead and occur in roster; environment overrides still win, and target zone support must be checked locally. Returns config text, normalized roster and warnings; writes nothing.

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": {
      "roster": "<roster>"
    },
    "name": "generate_team_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`zone`	No	IANA time zone supported by the target machine; defaults to UTC.	UTC
`roster`	Yes	Unique simple lowercase participant ids; include lead. Each id is at most 24 characters.
`coordinator`	No	Keep lead: the free core authorizes decided only for this label.	lead

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`zone`	Yes
`roster`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`config_text`	Yes
`coordinator`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: "writes nothing," free offline computation with no paid API, environment overrides still winning over the drafted file, and the requirement to verify target zone support locally. It also discloses the return payload (config text, normalized roster, warnings).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and the sibling contrast are correctly front-loaded, but the middle sentence ("Free offline text computation with no paid API and unbenchmarked short latency") is promotional filler, and "unbenchmarked short latency" conveys nothing actionable. The remainder is dense but each clause carries real constraints.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent drafting tool with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers prerequisites, exclusions, invariants, and side-effect profile. Only the vague performance claim and the lack of guidance on the zone-vs-roster interaction keep it short of complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description contributes a cross-field constraint the schema cannot express: the coordinator "must be lead and occur in roster." That relational rule materially helps correct invocation; the zone parameter's semantics are left entirely to 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 artifact ("Draft reviewed team.conf defaults") plus its scope ("a fresh local core"), and explicitly contrasts it with a sibling: "unlike generate_early_exit, produce roster settings rather than routine instructions." An agent can distinguish the two tools without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states the positive trigger ("Use before manual installation") and enumerates exclusions ("not for secrets, arbitrary shell fragments or modifying existing logs"). It also names the alternative tool and the axis of difference, so the routing decision is fully specified.

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

Deploy Server