Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Renga–Codex Bridge

Renga–Codex Bridge

by ucrdaniel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

bridge_preview_on_copy

Preview proposed edits on a new disposable native copy, keeping the saved source file unchanged.

Instructions

Apply proposed edits to a NEW disposable native copy, preserving the saved source file.

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>",
      "operations": "<operations>"
    },
    "name": "bridge_preview_on_copy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
outputYes
projectYes
operationsYes

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 burden, and it does disclose a key behavioral trait: edits land on a disposable copy and the source file is preserved. However, it omits permissions, reversibility of the copy, and what the operation returns.

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; the preservation guarantee is stated clearly. Slightly terse given the complexity it is summarizing.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage leave the agent underinformed about inputs and return values for a 3-required-param tool. The description covers intent but not enough operational detail.

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 coverage is 0% and all three parameters (project, output, operations) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning about what 'output' designates or what format 'operations' expects, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('apply proposed edits') and a distinctive scope ('to a NEW disposable native copy, preserving the saved source file'). This differentiates it in effect from direct-apply siblings like bridge_apply_plan, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implies a preview/dry-run intent ('preview', 'disposable copy') but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as bridge_apply_plan. The agent must infer the routing.

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