Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PineForge-Codegen

PineForge-Codegen

by pineforge-4pass
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Pull the engine image

pull_engine_image
Idempotent

Pulls the PineForge release runtime Docker image to your machine so the first backtest_pine call has the required engine.

Instructions

Run docker pull for the pineforge-release runtime image on the user's machine. Useful before the first backtest_pine call.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pull_engine_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
imageNoImage to pull. Defaults to ghcr.io/pineforge-4pass/pineforge-engine:latest.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.4

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering network access and repeat-safety. The description adds real context by naming the mechanism (`docker pull`) and targeting a local machine image, but says nothing about Docker prerequisites, download size/time, or failure behavior.

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 short sentences with no filler; the action is front-loaded and the usage hint follows immediately. Nothing extraneous.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering safety and network scope, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps: no mention of Docker being required or what a failed pull looks like.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `image` parameter already documents its default in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or override guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: runs `docker pull` for the pineforge-release runtime image. An agent can distinguish this from sibling `check_engine_image` (which presumably only verifies) 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?

"Useful before the first backtest_pine call" gives a timing hint, but it is hedged ("useful") and never names the alternative `check_engine_image` or states when the pull is unnecessary. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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