Create or update a file on a branch via git plumbing. Wraps createOrUpdateFileOnBranch. Pass content as a UTF-8 string OR content_base64 for binary. Requires 'repo' scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| repo | Yes | ||
| owner | Yes | ||
| branch | Yes | ||
| content | No | UTF-8 file body (optional) | |
| message | Yes | Commit message | |
| content_base64 | No | Base64 file body (optional) | |
| expect_blob_sha | No | Optimistic-concurrency check: existing blob sha must match. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it requires 'repo' scope and wraps createOrUpdateFileOnBranch, but does not discuss concurrency checks, rate limits, or what happens on overwrite, which are important for a mutation tool.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediate guidance on parameter usage. No unnecessary words, and each sentence earns its place.
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 8 parameters, no output schema, and a mutation operation, the description covers basic intent and parameter choice but omits return values, error cases, and the optimistic concurrency parameter (expect_blob_sha). This is adequate but not thorough.
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 description clarifies the critical choice between content (UTF-8 string) and content_base64 (binary), adding value beyond the schema. With 50% schema coverage, this explanation compensates. Other standard params (owner, repo, path, branch, message) are left to the schema.
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 'Create or update a file on a branch via git plumbing', specifying the verb (create/update) and resource (file on branch). It distinguishes from siblings like read_file, delete_file, and atomic_multi_file_commit by focusing on a single file operation.
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?
Explicitly advises when to use content vs content_base64 and mentions the required 'repo' scope. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like atomic_multi_file_commit for multi-file operations.
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.
