Propose a dependency-upgrade PR. Wraps src/lib/migration-assistant.proposeMajorMigration. Requires 'repo' scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | ||
| owner | Yes | ||
| base_sha | Yes | Commit sha to fork from | |
| changelog | No | Optional changelog text | |
| dependency | Yes | ||
| to_version | Yes | ||
| from_version | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the scope requirement and internal function name, providing some context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe side effects, output, or implications of proposing a migration.
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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose. It is concise and avoids fluff, though it could integrate parameter guidance without becoming verbose.
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 7 parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the migration process, expected output, side effects, or prerequisites beyond 'repo' scope. Context for a complex operation is lacking.
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?
With only 29% schema description coverage, the description adds no information about the 7 parameters. It fails to explain what owner, repo, dependency, from_version, to_version are, or how they are used. The description should compensate for low schema coverage but does not.
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 tool proposes a dependency-upgrade PR, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_pr or propose_doc_update by focusing on dependency upgrades. Internal reference adds specificity.
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 mentions 'Requires repo scope', indicating a prerequisite, but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_pr or open_draft_pr. No explicit when-not or alternative suggestions are provided.
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.
