Create a new AirPipe configuration (config_yaml is base64-encoded YAML) and optionally deploy it to staging or production.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role_uuid | No | ||
| permission | No | ||
| config_yaml | Yes | ||
| deploy_staging | No | ||
| deploy_production | No | ||
| organization_uuid | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that config_yaml is base64-encoded and deployment can be to staging/production. But lacks details on mutation behavior, error handling, permissions, or side effects. No annotations exist to supplement.
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?
Single sentence with clear main action and optional deployment. No redundant words. Could be expanded but remains concise.
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?
For a creation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description leaves many gaps: return value, error conditions, relationship to other config tools. Inadequate for complete context.
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?
Only config_yaml's base64 encoding is explained. Other 5 parameters (role_uuid, permission, deploy_staging, deploy_production, organization_uuid) have no description, and schema coverage is 0%.
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 the tool creates a new AirPipe configuration and mentions base64-encoded YAML. It distinguishes from siblings like 'edit_config' or 'delete_config' via 'create', but no explicit differentiation.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_config' or 'plan_config'. Does not specify prerequisites or conditions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource (config or module) and action (create, read, update, delete, deploy, etc.), with clear descriptions that avoid overlap. No two tools appear to perform the same function.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_config, list_modules), with occasional specificity like deploy_config_revision. No mixing of conventions or unexpected naming.
At 19 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but still well-scoped for a configuration management server covering CRUD, deployment, revision history, validation, and planning. Each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of configurations and modules (create, read, update, delete, deploy, undeploy, toggle, validate, plan, edit). Minor gaps like bulk operations or search are absent but not critical for the domain.