Skip to main content
Glama

Hatch

by com.viberooster
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Replace site code (advanced)

deploy
DestructiveIdempotent

Replace the server-side code of an existing roost. Advanced — most agents should use upload (for static files) or convert (for renames) instead. Pass hatchId, workerName, and a full ES module script (text only, 1.5 MiB max).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
policyNoHITL policy override. Under `required`, may fork a sibling `{slug}-vN`.
scriptYesFull ES module source.
hatchIdNoHatch id from the original hatch response.
metadataNo
tenantIdNoLegacy alias for `hatchId`.
hitlTitleNoModal title for auto-opened HITL.
approvalIdNoTier-2 phone approval id from a prior deploy attempt.
webhookUrlNoWebhook for auto-opened HITL.
workerNameYes
sessionTokenNoOptional paired session token from poll_pairing (when Authorization headers are unavailable).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / hitlTitle
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Modal title for auto-opened HITL.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / policy
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "HITL policy override. Under `required`, may fork a sibling `{slug}-vN`.",
+  "enum": [
+    "required",
+    "good_effort"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / webhookUrl
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Webhook for auto-opened HITL.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / hatchId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Hatch id from the original hatch response.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / tenantId / description
      Added value: +"Legacy alias for `hatchId`."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "tenantId",
-  "workerName",
-  "script"
-]New value: +[
+  "workerName",
+  "script"
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description isn't required to restate mutation, but it reinforces replacing existing code and adds actionable constraints (ES module, text-only, 1.5 MiB max). It does not describe HITL/forking side effects, but that nuance is captured in the policy parameter's schema description; no contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The warning about alternatives is front-loaded before the required payload, so the most important routing information is immediately visible.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the common path well, but this is a 10-parameter advanced mutation with no output schema. It does not explain outcomes (e.g., fork behavior under policy=required, HITL/approval flow, session token use) though most optional terms are at least documented in the schema. Acceptable but not complete for every agent decision.

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?

Schema coverage is 80% so the baseline is already strong; the description adds real value by calling out the required-ish trio (hatchId, workerName, script) and defining script as 'full ES module (text only, 1.5 MiB max)', a constraint not in the schema. It omits optional params but they are documented in the schema.

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?

States a specific action and resource ('Replace the server-side code of an existing roost') and frames itself as the advanced option vs upload/convert. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells agents when not to use it ('most agents should use upload for static files or convert for renames instead'), giving alternatives and their applicable cases. The intended use case—advanced server-side replacement—is clear.

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

All Hatch toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources