Skip to main content
Glama

SHPBL: Repository Audit & Repair

by com.shpbl

Open a pull request (Practitioner)

write_to_repo

Land finished work in a repository as a pull request: pass the files you wrote (full new contents, not diffs) and this opens a branch and a PR for the human to review and merge. Nothing is ever pushed to the default branch. Requires a SHPBL Practitioner key and the SHPBL GitHub App installed on that repository (or a one-off github_token). The caller chooses the repository — ask which one, or call list_repos first; never assume. Where things go: Harvest output belongs under .shpbl/ in the caller's own repository. Sources a run may read: public repositories that carry a proper open-source license, the caller's own repositories, or private repositories the caller has access to. The server never reads a repository the caller has no right to read, and it never absorbs customer harvests back into the public library.

  • .shpbl/README.md — the index of their capability library (this tool scaffolds it when it is absent).

  • .shpbl/<run-seal>/LEDGER.md — the folded ledger for one run.

  • .shpbl/<run-seal>/REPORT.html — the branded report, if one was produced.

  • .shpbl/<capability-name>/ — a capability kept as source, one folder each.

  • .shpbl/COMPOSITES.md — your own composites: capabilities this run invented for your repository by fusing parts that did nothing alone. Record each as - <name> — <what it fuses> — <why neither part sufficed>. These are yours and stay private; SHPBL's global composites ledger is fed only by Governor-keyed published runs, so never send yours anywhere and never expect them to appear there. Give each kept capability a one-line contract in .shpbl/README.md, in the form - <name> — <path> — <contract>. That index is what makes the library reusable: on the next run, read it and pass those entries as own_library to evaluate_repo, fix_repo or run_gauntlet, and the run will tell you which concerns you already solved before citing anything new. Those entries stay yours — they are held for the call and never stored by SHPBL. Repairs are the exception: write the repaired file at its own path, never under .shpbl/.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNoYour SHPBL subscription key (shpbl_mcp_…). Optional if your client sends it as the `Authorization: Bearer …` request header.
kindNoWhat this pull request lands. `harvest` means kept capabilities and a ledger: write them under `.shpbl/` and this scaffolds `.shpbl/README.md` as the index of their own capability library when it is missing. `foundry` means built software and its tests, landing under `.shpbl/` beside the index the same way a harvest does — only ever an artifact whose Build Intent `build_intent` authorised. `repair` means fixed files at their own paths, and nothing is scaffolded.
repoYesThe GitHub repository to write to: `owner/repo` or a URL.
filesYesComplete file contents to commit. For a repair, the whole fixed file — not a diff.
titleYesPull request title — say what the change does.
branchNoBranch to write on. Defaults to one derived from `run_id`, or `shpbl/<date>-<n>`; reusing a name appends to that PR.
run_idNoA stable id for this piece of work (a harvest run seal, a repair order id). Retrying with the same run_id lands on the same branch and updates the same pull request instead of opening a second one. Prefer this over `branch`.
summaryYesPull request body: the repair order, or the run seal and coverage of a harvest. Markdown.
base_refNoBranch to open against. Defaults to the repository's default branch.
github_tokenNoOne-off GitHub token with Contents and Pull requests write. Used for this call only and never stored. Omit it if the SHPBL GitHub App is installed.
build_authorizationNoThe signed build authorizations `build_intent` returned, one per artifact this pull request lands. Required when `kind` is `foundry`: the server verifies each against its own Build Intent ledger and refuses to land an artifact it never gated.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only supply hints; the description carries the behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that nothing is pushed to the default branch, that auth can be a SHPBL key plus GitHub App or a one-off token, that the server never reads repos the caller has no right to read, that composites stay private, and that build artifacts are only landed with signed authorization. This far exceeds the annotation hints.

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 long but well structured: the core action is front-loaded, followed by auth, then file placement, then the library index contract, then the repair exception. It earns most of its length given 11 parameters and complex privacy/build rules, though some points are reiterated from the schema, such as full contents rather than diffs.

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?

The description covers the operational essentials: auth, repository selection, branch/run_id behavior, file placement, privacy boundaries, and build authorization. With no output schema, it could have named the return value, such as the PR URL or number, but for a complex write tool the description is otherwise comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value beyond the schema: it clarifies that files must be full new contents rather than diffs, that run_id/branch reuse updates the same PR, that repository choice must never be assumed, and that repairs write outside .shpbl/. It does not individually elaborate every parameter, but it complements the schema meaningfully.

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 states a specific action and resource: "Land finished work in a repository as a pull request" and explains that passing full file contents opens a branch and PR. It clearly distinguishes this write/PR-creation tool from read-oriented siblings such as evaluate_repo or list_repos by emphasizing the PR outcome and the 'nothing pushed to default branch' guarantee.

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 gives clear usage context: use it to land finished work via a PR, pass full new contents rather than diffs, and let a human review and merge. It also provides concrete guidance such as 'ask which one, or call list_repos first; never assume' and 'Repairs are the exception'. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool versus each sibling, but the operational context is strong.

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

All SHPBL: Repository Audit & Repair 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct roles, but the capability-discovery cluster is genuinely confusable: compose_capability calls itself 'the harvest lane' while harvest_repo is 'the harvest,' and evaluate_repo with a key also identifies candidates and composes — an agent must read long descriptions carefully to pick correctly. The free/key mode-switching also makes each tool's effective behavior conditional, raising misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant pattern is verb_noun (build_intent, evaluate_repo, fix_repo, harvest_repo, list_repos, pin_source, run_contract, run_gauntlet, write_to_repo), and the library_document/library_index/library_search trio follows a deliberate resource-prefix convention. A few outliers break the pattern — welcome (bare verb), selfcheck_mcp, and subscription_status — but they are a small minority and still readable.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools the set is slightly past the ideal 3-15 range, but the domain genuinely spans an audit pipeline, a capability library, run orchestration, repo write-back, and billing/onboarding meta-tools. Roughly a third are lightweight informational endpoints (welcome, method_protocol, run_contract, library_index, subscription_status, selfcheck_mcp), which adds surface area, but each has a distinct job and none is redundant.

Completeness4/5

The lifecycle is well covered: pin_source → evaluate_repo → fix_repo → harvest_repo → compose_capability → write_to_repo, with run_gauntlet orchestrating the whole path and run_contract/method_protocol providing gates and discipline. Minor gaps exist — write_to_repo is create-only with no PR update/merge/close, and past run state is only resumable via ledger_digest — but there are no dead ends.

Resources