Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Renga–Codex Bridge

Renga–Codex Bridge

by ucrdaniel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

bridge_copy_project

Copy a saved native Renga project to a new writable location and open the duplicate in an isolated process for safe editing or testing.

Instructions

Copy saved native project to a NEW writable destination and open the copy in an isolated process.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "output": "<output>"
    },
    "name": "bridge_copy_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
outputYes
projectYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits — that the destination must be new/writable and that the copy opens in an isolated process — but says nothing about permissions, the fate of the source project, reversibility, or the return state.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly responsible for the coverage gaps elsewhere.

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 mutation tool that creates and opens a new project, with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, one sentence is inadequate. It omits preconditions, side effects on the source, and what the caller receives back.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and neither 'project' nor 'output' is described anywhere. The description alludes to a 'destination' (output) but gives no format, path semantics, or whether the destination must not already exist, leaving both parameters effectively undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (Copy) and resource (saved native project) plus the key qualifier that the destination is NEW and writable and that the copy is opened in an isolated process. It is clearly distinguishable from nearby siblings like bridge_save_as, though it doesn't explicitly name the boundary.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as bridge_save_as or bridge_preview_on_copy despite their presence in the sibling set. The copy intent is implied but nothing routes the agent between options.

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