Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIWorkhub

AIWorkhub

by shrec
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

aiworkhub_manager_recipe_seed_canonical

MANAGER WRITE: install the catalogue of this repository's own invocations.

Instructions

MANAGER WRITE: install the catalogue of this repository's own invocations.

Each entry of manager_recipe_tools.CANONICAL_RECIPES describes an argv vector AIWorkHub genuinely builds (the card validation commands, the worker worktree provisioning sequence, the finalization Git probes), naming its call site in its purpose. Idempotent: an entry already stored is reported as already_registered and its row is left untouched.

Per-project, not a fixed list. The universal entries -- the git workspace/finalization/diff probes and the packaged aiworkhub.recipes.* operator modules -- install everywhere. The entries that depend on a toolchain or on paths that must exist in THIS project install only when toolchain_authority measures them present, so a project without Node never receives validation.node_test. withheld names every skipped entry with its measured reason.

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": "aiworkhub_manager_recipe_seed_canonical"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.12.84
  2. Removedv0.12.82
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses that the operation is idempotent, that existing entries are left untouched, that skipped entries are reported under `withheld` with reasons, and that installation is per-project rather than a fixed list. This is rich behavioral context for a write tool.

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 description is front-loaded with 'MANAGER WRITE' and the core purpose, then explains entry sources, idempotency, and the universal/conditional split. It is information-dense and mostly earns its length, though some phrasing is more elaborate than strictly necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the write behavior, idempotency, conditional installation, and withheld reporting. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Annotations cover the safety profile, and with zero parameters there is no schema gap to fill.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions `manager_recipe_tools.CANONICAL_RECIPES` and `toolchain_authority` as internal mechanisms, but no parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'install the catalogue of this repository's own invocations.' It further specifies that entries come from `manager_recipe_tools.CANONICAL_RECIPES` and represent argv vectors AIWorkHub genuinely builds, making the operation distinct from sibling tools like `recipe_seed_plan`, `recipe_register`, or `recipe_run`.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explains the conditional installation model: universal entries install everywhere, while toolchain-dependent entries install only when `toolchain_authority` measures them present. It also states idempotency and the `already_registered` outcome. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to `recipe_seed_plan` as a dry-run/preview alternative.

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