Gluecron

gluecron_atomic_multi_file_commit

Apply a set of file writes + deletes as a single atomic commit on a branch (creates the branch if it doesn't exist). The killer agent tool: blob/tree/commit/ref-update sequence. Each change is {path, content?, content_base64?, deleted?}. Requires 'repo' scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes
`owner`	Yes
`branch`	Yes
`changes`	Yes	Array of {path, content?\|content_base64?, deleted?} entries.
`message`	Yes
`base_branch`	No	Branch to fork from when `branch` doesn't yet exist (default: repo default).

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses branch creation side effect and atomic implementation ('blob/tree/commit/ref-update sequence'). While annotations show destructiveHint=false, the description adds context about mutation without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences with key information front-loaded. The promotional phrase 'The killer agent tool' is slightly extraneous but not harmful. Overall compact and efficient.

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?

Covers atomic behavior, branch creation, and change structure. Missing details on error handling, conflict resolution, and behavior when branch already exists (though implied). No output schema, but description compensates adequately.

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?

Enriches the changes parameter with clear structure ({path, content?, content_base64?, deleted?}) beyond schema's brief mention. However, owner, repo, branch, and message are not elaborated, leaving some interpretation to the user.

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?

Clearly states 'apply a set of file writes + deletes as a single atomic commit on a branch', providing a specific verb ('apply') and resource (multi-file commit). Distinguishes from sibling tools like write_file, delete_file, and create_branch by emphasizing atomicity and batch nature.

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?

Implicitly guides use for atomic multi-file operations, contrasting with single-file siblings. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations beyond the sibling list.

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

All Gluecron 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

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have near-identical purposes, such as `gluecron_read_file` and `gluecron_repo_read_file` (both read a file from a repo), and `gluecron_explain_repo` and `gluecron_repo_explain_codebase` (both return cached AI explanation). This creates ambiguity despite minor differences in description. While many tools are distinct, the overlapping pairs force an agent to choose between effectively equivalent operations, lowering disambiguation.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use the `gluecron_` prefix followed by a verb_noun pattern (e.g., `acquire_lease`, `create_issue`, `merge_pr`). A few tools like `gluecron_ai_cost_summary` and `gluecron_repo_explain_codebase` deviate slightly but remain readable and predictable. Overall, the naming convention is largely consistent, making it easy to infer tool function from the name.

Tool Count2/5

With 60 tools, the server far exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many' per the guidelines. Although the server covers a broad developer platform (repository management, issues, PRs, workflows, AI features, etc.), the sheer number of tools makes navigation heavy and risks overwhelming both agents and users. A more focused set would improve coherence.

Completeness5/5

The tool set is remarkably thorough, covering nearly every lifecycle stage for repositories, issues, pull requests, workflows, branches, commits, and AI-assisted features (chat, test generation, release notes, refactoring, voice-to-PR). Essential CRUD operations are present, and advanced operations like leasing, sandbox provisioning, and multi-repo refactoring are included. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a developer platform.

Resources

Need Help?