github_job_templateGenerate the exact GitHub Actions job JSON for a heavy OSS worker accessible through the connected GitHub account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | ||
| input | Yes |
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?
The description's 'Generate' is consistent with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint since producing a JSON payload is side-effect-free. It adds no extra behavioral details beyond annotations, such as whether network calls are made or how the GitHub account is used. Annotations already cover the key safety aspects, so this is adequate.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words and clearly states the output format (JSON). It loses a point because the ambiguous 'heavy OSS worker' phrase and the lack of any structural hint about the 'input' object slightly hurt clarity.
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?
The description provides the core purpose but omits essential details: what 'input' should contain, how 'tool' maps to a job, whether the result is a full workflow file, and any constraints on the input object. With no output schema, these gaps cannot be filled elsewhere.
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 does not explain what 'tool' and 'input' mean or how they affect the generated job. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must guess that 'tool' selects one of the listed tools and that 'input' is a configuration object. This is a major gap because the 'input' field is an arbitrary object with no explanation.
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 states the tool generates GitHub Actions job JSON for a worker using a specified tool, which is a clear verb and resource. However, 'heavy OSS worker' is ambiguous—possibly meaning a headless/resource-heavy workload—and it doesn't clarify how the enum of tools relates to the generated job. It distinguishes from siblings only implicitly as a template generator.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_stack or searxng_search. It doesn't mention use cases, prerequisites, or conditions. The phrase 'accessible through the connected GitHub account' hints at context but isn't a usable usage guide.
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.
The five tools have mostly distinct purposes: business tool recommendations, GitHub job generation, stack listing, RSS fetching, and web search. There is minor overlap between business_tool_routes and list_stack, as both deal with tool stacks, but they target different audiences and outputs.
Naming is inconsistent. Tools like rsshub_fetch and searxng_search follow a verb_noun pattern, while business_tool_routes and github_job_template are noun phrases. list_stack is a verb_noun but the rest do not follow a uniform convention, making the API surface less predictable.
With exactly 5 tools, the server sits comfortably within the typical 3-15 range. Each tool provides a distinct capability without unnecessary bloat or excessive fragmentation.
The domain is a mix of unrelated functionalities (business recommendations, GitHub actions, web search, RSS). While each tool covers its stated purpose, the lack of a cohesive domain makes it hard to assess whether any operations are missing. For example, there is no tool for managing or updating GitHub jobs beyond generating a template, and no explicit search for business or stack data beyond the provided routes.