composeCompose a combined .gitignore from multiple templates, separated by headers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | Yes | e.g. ["Node", "macOS", "VisualStudioCode"] |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Combined .gitignore content with template sections separated by headers | |
| names | Yes | List of template names that were composed |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "names": [
+ "Node",
+ "macOS"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "names": [
+ "Python",
+ "VisualStudioCode",
+ "macOS"
+ ]
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "body": {
+ "description": "Combined .gitignore content with template sections separated by headers",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "names": {
+ "description": "List of template names that were composed",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "names",
+ "body"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context by noting that the result is separated by headers, which is not captured in the annotations. It could mention that templates are fetched from a predefined source or that no side effects occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose and is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It briefly explains the 'separated by headers' behavior, though more detail on what that means (e.g., section headers) would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema includes a complete description and example for the single parameter 'names'. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only implying that names refer to template names. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (compose), the resource (combined .gitignore), and the method (from multiple templates, separated by headers). It effectively distinguishes the tool from the set of sibling tools, which are unrelated (e.g., polymarket, pipeworx).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when needing a combined .gitignore from templates, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Given the siblings are unrelated, the lack of explicit exclusions is acceptable, but some guidance would improve it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as functionally identical right now, making them near-duplicates. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also heavily overlap, and deep_research vs ask_pipeworx requires careful reading to know which to pick.
Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_templates, create_*, validate_claim). However, a few bare verbs break the pattern: compose, forget, recall, and remember.
34 tools is already heavy, but the server is named 'Gitignore' and only 3 of 34 tools relate to .gitignore templates. The other 31 tools form a completely unrelated data platform, making the count an extreme mismatch for the apparent scope.
As a data platform, the surface is broad but has notable gaps: citations return pipeworx:// URIs yet no fetch/read-by-URI tool exists, and subscriptions support subscribe/unsubscribe/list but not update. For the gitignore name, only basic template list/get/compose is present, with the rest irrelevant to the stated purpose.