Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Renga–Codex Bridge

Renga–Codex Bridge

by ucrdaniel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

bridge_project_info

Read a Renga project’s native Code, Name, Stage, Description, and persistent UUID to verify metadata and identify the model for bridge operations.

Instructions

Read actual native project Code/Name/Stage/Description and persistent project UUID.

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>"
    },
    "name": "bridge_project_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only via 'Read' and hints that 'actual native' data and a 'persistent' UUID are returned, but says nothing about permissions, failure modes when the project is unknown, or whether other tools see the same values.

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 sentence with no filler, and the key content (read + resource + returned fields) is front-loaded. The phrasing is slightly clunky with the slash-separated field list, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which partially covers return-value disclosure. However, the one undocumented input parameter and the absence of any annotation-equivalent behavior detail leave real gaps for a tool the agent must call with an unidentified project argument.

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?

The single required 'project' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what form it takes (name, file path, UUID). Mentioning a 'persistent project UUID' in the return fields is ambiguous and does not clarify whether the parameter accepts a UUID.

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 (Read) plus the exact resource and the fields returned (Code/Name/Stage/Description/UUID), which makes it clearly the read counterpart to bridge_set_project_info. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as bridge_set_project_info or bridge_capabilities. The only usage signal is the verb 'Read', which the agent must interpret on its own.

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