Dispatch a workflow_dispatch run. Mirrors POST /api/v2/repos/.../actions/workflows/:filename/dispatches. Requires 'repo' scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Branch / tag / sha (default: repo default branch) | |
| repo | Yes | ||
| owner | Yes | ||
| inputs | No | Workflow inputs (object) | |
| filename | Yes | Workflow filename (e.g. ci.yml) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't contradict them. The description adds the requirement for 'repo' scope and notes the mirroring of a POST endpoint, adding some behavioral context beyond 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 is two sentences and immediately states the core action. It is front-loaded with the key verb 'Dispatch'. Slightly more detail on parameters would improve it, but it remains efficient.
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 the lack of output schema and moderate parameter coverage, the description covers the basic purpose and a key requirement but does not fully explain return values or behavior for all parameters. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 60% schema coverage (3 of 5 parameters described), the description does not elaborate on parameters beyond the schema. It adds no extra meaning for ref, inputs, or other parameters, leaving gaps for the agent.
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 'Dispatch a workflow_dispatch run' and references the exact API endpoint, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like cancel_workflow_run or get_workflow_run.
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', a prerequisite, but does not explicitly guide on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to trigger vs. cancel). Usage context is implied but not explicit.
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.
