Microapp

gitignore-generator

Read-onlyIdempotent

Build a .gitignore file by picking technologies (languages, frameworks, editors, operating systems). Rules from each pick are merged, with duplicate rule lines dropped silently. Returns the file content ready to save.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`templateIds`	Yes	Template identifiers to include. At least one is required. Known IDs: node, python, java, ruby, go, rust, php, cpp, csharp, react, vue, nextjs, astro, rails, django, spring, vscode, intellij, vim, emacs, sublime, macos, windows, linux.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	Yes	The merged, deduplicated .gitignore file text, ready to save.
`ruleCount`	Yes	Number of unique rule lines in the output (comments + blank lines excluded).
`templates`	Yes	Labels of the templates that contributed, in order.

Schema Changelog

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

AddedMay 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing that rules from each selection are merged and duplicate lines are dropped silently, and that the result is file content ready to save. This provides valuable behavioral context that could affect user expectations, though it does not delve into deeper edge cases.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and the second covers behavior and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and detailed annotations, the tool description sufficiently covers the merging behavior, duplicate elimination, and output form. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a list of known template IDs and the minItems requirement. The description only indirectly references 'picking technologies' and adds no additional semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Build') and a specific resource ('.gitignore file'), and explains the approach (picking technologies). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling generator tools like cookie-consent-generator or dummy-data-generator.

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 implies clear usage context: when you need a .gitignore file by selecting technologies, with rules merged and deduplicated. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the tool's unique scope makes the intended use obvious.

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

All Microapp tools Inspect

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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes. However, 'hex-to-rgb' is redundant with 'color-converter', which already handles hex-to-RGB conversion, causing potential confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names follow a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens style, but vary in pattern (e.g., 'angle-converter', 'average-calculator', 'dedup-lines'). One tool ('internal-do-not-call') deviates from the descriptive norm.

Tool Count2/5

With 46 tools, the server is heavily populated. Many converters could be merged into a generic unit converter, and there is redundancy, making the surface unnecessarily large for a single server.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a broad range of utility domains: converters, text processing, math, cryptography, etc. Minor redundancies exist (e.g., hex-to-rgb vs color-converter), but the set is otherwise comprehensive.

Resources

Need Help?