Skip to main content
Glama

Forge Engine

by app.forgeengine

report_build_status

Report a SYSTEM's status (todo|in-progress|implemented) — DIRECT, live. ALWAYS pass files (full list — it REPLACES); non-todo with no files shows done-but-EMPTY. 'implemented' counts as VERIFIED only when every UNIT-TESTABLE ## Acceptance bullet is backed via evidence[{criterion,proof}]; a bullet tagged [manual]/[e2e]/[ui]/[wip] is EXEMPT (verified by manual/e2e). Otherwise it's a CLAIM (verified:false) and the response names the unbacked criteria. TWO tiers: VERIFIED = a test is NAMED; GREEN (guarantee) = you RAN the test and reported passed:true on the evidence — green goes stale after 21 days, so re-run to keep it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoPreferred
nameNoIf no id
filesNoONE file per entry (optional ' — function'); prose → decisions
statusYestodo | in-progress | implemented
versionNoe.g. "0.379.0"
evidenceNoMap ## Acceptance bullets to a test/file: [{criterion, proof, passed?, at?}]. Re-send full set (replaces). proof-only = backed (claimed); passed:true = test-green (guarantee).
decisionsNoDecisions/divergences (prose)
project_idNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / evidence / description
      Previous value: -"Map ## Acceptance bullets to a test/file that verifies each: [{criterion, proof}]. Re-send full set (replaces). Surfaces as N/M backed."New value: +"Map ## Acceptance bullets to a test/file: [{criterion, proof, passed?, at?}]. Re-send full set (replaces). proof-only = backed (claimed); passed:true = test-green (guarantee)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / evidence / items / properties / at
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ISO time of the pass (defaults to now); green expires after 21d",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / evidence / items / properties / passed
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "true = you RAN this test and it passed → counts toward TEST-GREEN",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / evidence
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Map ## Acceptance bullets to a test/file that verifies each: [{criterion, proof}]. Re-send full set (replaces). Surfaces as N/M backed.",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "criterion": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "proof": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  3. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / decisions / description
      Previous value: -"Optional — key build decisions / divergences from the design (this is where prose/notes go, NOT in files)."New value: +"Decisions/divergences (prose)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / files / description
      Previous value: -"Optional — the file PATHS that implement this system (the system->code map). ONE file per array entry; you MAY append its key function/class after the path, e.g. \"Assets/Scripts/StatSystem/StatService.cs — StatService.recompute\". Each entry = file + (optional) function ONLY. Do NOT put a comma-separated list, prose, test counts, or split one file across multiple entries."New value: +"ONE file per entry (optional ' — function'); prose → decisions"
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"System id (preferred), from get_project_context / list_systems."New value: +"Preferred"
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Exact system name (if no id)."New value: +"If no id"
    • 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 / version / description
      Previous value: -"Optional — the build/app version at which this system reached this status (e.g. \"0.379.0\"); shown in get_build_region + get_history so decisions anchor to a concrete build."New value: +"e.g. \"0.379.0\""
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the minimal destructiveHint:false annotation, the description thoroughly discloses replacement semantics ('it REPLACES'), verification tiers (VERIFIED vs GREEN), exemption tags, failure output (response names unbacked criteria), and evidence staleness. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is dense and information-rich, but formatted as a single run-on paragraph. It front-loads the purpose and then cascades into rules; every sentence earns its place, though bullet points would improve readability.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the full behavioral contract: status semantics, file replacement, evidence verification, exemptions, output behavior, and staleness policy. There are no significant gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is high, but the description adds critical semantics: files replaces the full set with 'done-but-EMPTY' behavior, evidence requires criterion/proof structure, and passed:true yields the green guarantee. These details go beyond the schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Report a SYSTEM's status (todo|in-progress|implemented) — DIRECT, live', a specific verb+resource+scope. The allowed statuses are enumerated, and the system focus distinguishes it from sibling tools like report_screen_status.

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?

Provides clear operational rules: 'ALWAYS pass files (full list — it REPLACES)', the empty-state caveat, and the 21-day green staleness re-run instruction. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the system-specific scope implies when it applies.

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