Skip to main content
Glama

Forge Engine

by app.forgeengine

propose_system

Propose a NEW system → Inbox. spec = ## Goal / ## Boundary (Owns · Doesn't own) / ## Acceptance. Exists? use update_system. (Alias: create_proposal.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
specYesMarkdown: ## Goal / ## Boundary / ## Acceptance
batchNoimport_from_code batch id
filesNoImplementing paths, ONE file per entry
titleYesSystem name (Title Case, English)
project_idNo
derives_fromNoContext note title(s) this system derives from → wires provenance (upstream + siblings)
acknowledge_rejectionNoOnly after a DECLINED bounce AND asking the user

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / derives_from
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Context note title(s) this system derives from → wires provenance (upstream + siblings)",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / acknowledge_rejection / description
      Previous value: -"Only when a previous call bounced with 'the owner DECLINED this': pass true AFTER asking the user (owner changed their mind, or it's a genuinely different thing sharing the title). Never pass it just to get past the gate."New value: +"Only after a DECLINED bounce AND asking the user"
    • changedInput schema / properties / batch / description
      Previous value: -"Optional — the import batch id from import_from_code. Pass the SAME value on every proposal of one codebase import so the owner can Adopt them all as one group."New value: +"import_from_code batch id"
    • changedInput schema / properties / files / description
      Previous value: -"Optional — the source file paths that IMPLEMENT this system (clean repo-relative, one per entry, e.g. 'src/auth/login.ts'). Stored as the system→code map (get_build_region) so the design links back to the real code — give the files you read for this module."New value: +"Implementing paths, ONE file per entry"
    • removedInput schema / properties / project_id / description
      Removed value: -"Project id (from list_projects) to act on; omit = the connector URL's project."
    • changedInput schema / properties / spec / description
      Previous value: -"Markdown spec: ## Goal / ## Boundary (Owns, Doesn't own) / ## Acceptance"New value: +"Markdown: ## Goal / ## Boundary / ## Acceptance"
    • changedInput schema / properties / title / description
      Previous value: -"System name (Title Case, in English)"New value: +"System name (Title Case, English)"
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / acknowledge_rejection
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only when a previous call bounced with 'the owner DECLINED this': pass true AFTER asking the user (owner changed their mind, or it's a genuinely different thing sharing the title). Never pass it just to get past the gate.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by indicating proposals go to an 'Inbox' and that the tool is for new systems only, implying it does not modify existing ones. This complements the annotation without contradicting it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Two sentences convey the action, destination, spec format, and the key alternative, with zero filler.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the core behavior (proposal → Inbox), the critical spec format, and the alternative for existing systems. It does not explain all optional parameters, but the schema covers them, and the description is adequate for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 86%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds critical meaning for the 'spec' parameter by specifying the required Markdown format: '## Goal / ## Boundary (Owns · Doesn't own) / ## Acceptance.' This goes beyond the schema's generic mention.

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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Propose a NEW system → Inbox.' It specifies the destination and distinguishes from update_system (for existing systems), making its purpose unambiguous relative to siblings.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('NEW system') and an explicit alternative: 'Exists? use update_system.' It does not explicitly exclude other propose_* siblings, but the resource (system) is distinct, so the guidance is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Forge Engine toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with explicit distinctions between direct actions and proposals via Inbox. The verbs and object types (system, milestone, screen, element, balance) are unique enough that no two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_system, propose_screen, update_element). Minor deviations like 'dedupe', 'search', 'next_task', and 'reorder' are single words or non-verb but remain readable and stylistically compatible.

Tool Count1/5

With 54 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical MCP scope, hitting the 'extreme mismatch' threshold. Even for a complex domain, the sheer number will overwhelm agents and degrade selection performance.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete, covering full lifecycle operations for all major entities, plus import, design generation, drift detection, status reporting, inbox handling, and rejection workflows. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources