Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
WBSO MCP Server

WBSO MCP Server

by rubenmaas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

check_commit_wbso

Determine whether a specific git commit qualifies as WBSO-relevant work for R&D time tracking. Provide commit hash and repository path to get an instant eligibility check.

Instructions

Check if a git commit should be logged as WBSO work

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": "check_commit_wbso"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commit_hashNoGit commit hash (uses HEAD if not provided)
repository_pathNoPath to the git repository

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the purpose. It does not mention side effects (though 'check' implies read-only), return format, or any dependencies like repository access. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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 sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose immediately. It is extremely concise and well-structured for a one-line definition.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), but the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, explanation) or how it determines WBSO eligibility, leaving a key gap in understanding how to interpret results.

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%, meaning both parameters (commit_hash and repository_path) are already well-described. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, but the baseline for full schema coverage is 3, so this score 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 clearly states the tool's function: checking if a git commit should be logged as WBSO work. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('git commit'), making the purpose straightforward. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_wbso_relevance or classify_work, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_wbso_relevance or get_wbso_criteria. There are no context cues, exclusions, or alternative mentions, leaving the usage context entirely implied.

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