Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Sinatra

by dev.sinatra
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Start a coding task

start_task

Start a new coding task in a workspace. Sinatra's agent works on the prompt in its own sandbox and answers in the task's conversation. Depending on the prompt, it may push a branch and open a pull request in a connected GitHub repository. Each call starts a separate task unless it repeats an earlier idempotency_key. The task's url is its page in the Sinatra dashboard, where a person can follow it and reply.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNoowner/name of a connected repository. Omit to let the agent choose.
modelNoA model id from Sinatra's catalog, such as anthropic/claude-opus-5-5 or openai-codex/gpt-6.1-sol, for every agent on this task. Omit to use the repository's or workspace's model.
titleNoA short title; defaults to the prompt's first line.
promptYesWhat to do, as you'd ask a teammate.
workspace_idYesThe workspace id (from whoami).
idempotency_keyNoRetrying with the same key returns the same task instead of starting another.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / model / description
      Previous value: -"A model id from Sinatra's catalog, such as anthropic/claude-opus-5-5 or openai-codex/gpt-6.1-sol, for every turn of this task. Omit to use the repository's or workspace's model."New value: +"A model id from Sinatra's catalog, such as anthropic/claude-opus-5-5 or openai-codex/gpt-6.1-sol, for every agent on this task. Omit to use the repository's or workspace's model."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / model
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "A model id from Sinatra's catalog, such as anthropic/claude-opus-5-5 or openai-codex/gpt-6.1-sol, for every turn of this task. Omit to use the repository's or workspace's model.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses real side effect behavior: work happens in an isolated sandbox, a branch/PR may be created in a connected GitHub repository, and duplicate tasks are avoided only via idempotency_key (which nuances idempotentHint=false). It also tells the agent the task is asynchronous and replyable via the dashboard URL.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does before behavior details. Each sentence carries information, though the closing sentence about the dashboard URL is slightly tangential to invocation and could be tightened.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description fills the gap by explaining that the call yields a task with a URL and a conversation a person can follow and reply to. It does not state the returned task id or how progress is polled (get_task), which would round it out fully.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and every parameter has a description, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only echoes the idempotency_key meaning; it adds no new guidance about repo, model, title, or workspace_id beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Start a new coding task in a workspace') and then characterizes the operation: an agent works the prompt in its own sandbox and answers in the task's conversation. That sandbox/agent framing distinguishes it from sibling tools such as run_code, delegate_ticket, and follow_up.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear operational context: each call starts a separate task unless an idempotency_key repeats, and it may push a branch or open a PR depending on the prompt. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., when to use follow_up or get_task instead) or explicit exclusions, so it is not a full 5.

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

All Sinatra 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