Air Pipe

plan_config

Get airpipe config-authoring instructions plus RAG-retrieved real action examples for a natural-language request, so YOU (the calling model) write the YAML yourself instead of the server generating it. Returns { instructions, context, request, protocol }. After writing the config, validate it with the validate_config tool (repair loop) then persist it with create_config. Prefer this over generate_config whenever you can author YAML yourself.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`request`	Yes
`organization_uuid`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the return structure and the intended workflow, but does not explicitly state if the tool is read-only or has side effects. The 'get' verb implies read-only, but it's not confirmed.

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?

The description is mostly concise and front-loaded with purpose and return type. The second part about the post-processing pipeline adds value but makes it slightly longer than ideal.

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?

The description covers the tool's role in the config creation workflow and specifies return fields. However, it omits error cases, parameter details, and does not fully compensate for the lack of output schema. Still fairly complete given no annotations.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (request, limit, organization_uuid). It only describes the return structure. The agent lacks guidance on how to fill the required 'request' field.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to get config-authoring instructions and RAG examples for a natural-language request, enabling the model to write YAML itself. It distinguishes from generate_config by specifying a different workflow.

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?

The description explicitly advises when to use this tool ('prefer over generate_config whenever you can author YAML yourself') and provides a clear pipeline: validate_config then create_config. This sets clear context versus siblings.

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

All Air Pipe tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, targeting either configs or modules with specific actions (create, get, list, delete, update, deploy, etc.). The only potential overlap is between edit_config and plan_config, but they serve different stages of config management (editing vs. authoring).

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming follows a verb_noun pattern consistently (e.g., create_config, delete_config, list_configs). Minor inconsistency: 'list_configs' uses plural while most others use singular (config). Overall, the pattern is predictable and clear.

Tool Count4/5

With 19 tools, the count is slightly above average but justified by the need to manage two resource types (configs and modules) with full lifecycle operations including deployment, revision handling, and validation. It is well-scoped for a configuration management server.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is comprehensive, covering CRUD for both configs and modules, plus deployment, undeployment, toggling, revision management, editing via NL, planning, and validation. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.

Resources

Need Help?