Skip to main content
Glama
Parker-Fawcett

rebuild-dossier

by Parker-Fawcett
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Ingest repo

ingest_repo
Idempotent

Analyze an existing codebase's package.json, config files, routes, and tests to build a clean rebuild specification for coding agents.

Instructions

Parse package.json, tailwind/vite config, route files, and existing tests via static analysis. No LLM call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path to the repo to ingest
interactiveNoWhen true and 0 routes are found at a monorepo-shaped path, ask via elicitation which candidate directory is the real app, then ingest that instead

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
routesYes
savedToYes
signalsYes
openCasesYes
buildConfigYes
monorepoHintNo
existingTestsYes
resolvedMonorepoChoiceNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.6-paper
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "buildConfig": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "existingTests": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "monorepoHint": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "candidates": {
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "message",
+        "candidates"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "openCases": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "resolvedMonorepoChoice": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "routes": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "savedTo": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "signals": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "routes",
+    "existingTests",
+    "signals",
+    "buildConfig",
+    "openCases",
+    "savedTo"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context with 'static analysis' and 'No LLM call', signaling deterministic, non-LLM execution beyond what annotations state.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first states the operation and scope, and the second adds a key behavioral constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is low complexity, has full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness. The description supplies the remaining essential facts: what files are parsed and that no LLM call is made.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both path and interactive are already well documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the schema already carries the burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Parse', and names concrete resources: package.json, tailwind/vite config, route files, and existing tests. An agent can tell what the tool operates on, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like generate_spec or crawl_site.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The static-analysis phrasing and 'No LLM call' imply this is a deterministic, lower-cost ingestion step, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling names provide context, yet no direct routing or exclusion guidance is given.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Parker-Fawcett/rebuild-dossier'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server