Return the branch-preview URL + status for a (repo, branch) pair. Wraps branch-previews.getPreviewForBranch. Returns {ok:false, reason:'not enabled on this host'} when the host has no PREVIEW_DOMAIN (no preview would ever resolve).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | ||
| owner | Yes | ||
| branch | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool wraps an internal function and returns a specific error shape when the host is misconfigured. The success return format is only partially described ('URL + status'), but the added context goes beyond the annotations.
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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the primary action and inputs, and the second adds a critical error condition. Every sentence serves a purpose with no padding, making it highly efficient and 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?
Given three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the error case but omits details about the success response shape. It also fails to explain the 'owner' parameter. While the tool is simple, the missing parameter guidance and incomplete output description leave moderate gaps.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. However, the description mentions only 'repo' and 'branch', omitting the 'owner' parameter. It does not explain what each parameter represents or provide any insights beyond their names, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.
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 that the tool returns a branch-preview URL and status for a given repository and branch pair. It specifies the verb 'return' and the resource 'branch-preview URL + status', and the mention of wrapping an internal function adds precision. Among siblings, no other tool serves this purpose, making it well-differentiated.
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 to retrieve a preview URL for a branch, and it provides a specific condition (host without PREVIEW_DOMAIN) that leads to an error response. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the unique functionality makes the usage context clear enough.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
