Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
writ-mcp

writ-mcp

Official
by withwrit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

writ_manifests

List scanned repositories with risk scores, scan status, and risk counts, or fetch one repository's full signed manifest for audit and policy review.

Instructions

List scanned repos and their risk profiles, or fetch one manifest.

With no repo_id, returns a table of repos with writScore, scanStatus, and riskDigest (counts per risk class). With repo_id, returns the full signed manifest for that repo.

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": "writ_manifests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what each mode returns (writScore, scanStatus, riskDigest counts vs. the full signed manifest), but it never states that these are read-only operations, nor anything about pagination, size limits, or access requirements for a 'signed' manifest.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the overall purpose before the mode split. The parallel 'With no repo_id / With repo_id' construction is efficient, though it restates return details that the output schema already covers.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers mode selection and return shape adequately. The main residual gap is the missing repo_id format, which matters because an empty string silently switches the tool into list mode rather than erroring.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no title-level explanation beyond 'Repo Id' with a default of empty string. The description does add real meaning by defining the empty-vs-populated semantics of repo_id, which is the key behavior an agent needs, but it gives no format hint for the identifier (owner/repo slug, numeric id, etc.).

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 uses specific verbs and resources ('List scanned repos and their risk profiles', 'fetch one manifest') and clearly names the two operating modes. It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like writ_check or writ_receipts, 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The when-to-use split is explicit and tied to the parameter: omit repo_id for the repo table, supply repo_id for a single signed manifest. There is no mention of when to prefer a sibling tool or any exclusions, so it stops short of full alternative 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