Skip to main content
Glama

ateam-mcp

by io.github.ariekogan

ateam_build_and_run

DEPLOY THE CURRENT MAIN BRANCH TO A-TEAM CORE. ⚠️ HEAVIEST OPERATION (60-180s): validates solution+skills → deploys all connectors+skills to Core (regenerates MCP servers) → health-checks → optionally runs a warm test → auto-pushes to GitHub.

🌳 DEV/PROD WORKFLOW:

  1. Edit files → ateam_github_patch (writes to dev branch by default)

  2. (Optional) Preview what's about to ship → ateam_github_diff

  3. Ship dev → main → ateam_github_promote (merges + auto-tags prod-YYYY-MM-DD-NNN)

  4. Deploy main to Core → ateam_build_and_run

This tool ALWAYS deploys the main branch — there is no ref parameter. To deploy in-progress dev work, first promote it.

AUTO-DETECTS GitHub repo: if you omit mcp_store and a repo exists, connector code is pulled from main automatically. First deploy requires mcp_store. After that, edit via ateam_github_patch + promote, then build_and_run. For small changes prefer ateam_patch (faster, incremental). Requires authentication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
githubNoOptional: if true, pull connector source code from main. AUTO-DETECTED: if you omit both mcp_store and github, the system checks if a repo exists and pulls from main automatically.
skillsNoOptional after first deploy: skill definitions. If omitted, auto-pulled from main (skills/{id}/skill.json).
solutionNoFull solution definition. Required on first deploy. After first deploy, just pass solution_id instead — everything is auto-pulled from GitHub main.
mcp_storeNoOptional: connector source code files. Key = connector id, value = array of {path, content}.
connectorsNoOptional: connector metadata (id, name, transport). Entry points auto-detected from mcp_store.
solution_idNoThe solution ID. Use this INSTEAD of passing the full solution object — the solution definition is auto-pulled from main. Required if solution object is omitted.
test_messageNoOptional: send a test message after deployment to verify the skill works. Returns the full execution result.
test_skill_idNoOptional: which skill to test (defaults to the first skill).

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the heaviest operation duration (60-180s), the full sequence (validates, deploys, regenerates MCP servers, health-checks, optional warm test, auto-pushes to GitHub), requires authentication, and notes first deploy needs mcp_store. These are significant behavioral details beyond simple purpose.

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 long but well-structured with a clear opening, numbered workflow steps, and parameter guidance. Each sentence provides useful information, though some could be trimmed without losing meaning. The front-loading of the warning and main-branch rule is effective.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the deployment workflow, prerequisites, side effects, alternatives, and parameter semantics, leaving little ambiguity about how and when to invoke the tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: it explains that 'solution' is required on first deploy but later 'solution_id' should be used, that skills and connectors are auto-pulled from main when omitted, and that the 'github' flag is auto-detected. This enriches the schema with lifecycle context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'DEPLOY THE CURRENT MAIN BRANCH TO A-TEAM CORE.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly referencing the workflow with ateam_github_patch, ateam_github_diff, and ateam_github_promote, and by noting it always deploys main with no ref parameter.

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 provides an explicit DEV/PROD workflow and states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'For small changes prefer ateam_patch (faster, incremental).' It also explains that to deploy in-progress dev work, users must first promote to main, clarifying when this tool is appropriate.

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

All ateam-mcp toolsInspect
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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that differentiate similar functions like chain polling vs. chain inspection. However, there is slight overlap between ateam_design_advisor, ateam_get_spec, and ateam_spec_search, which all serve design guidance, potentially causing confusion if descriptions are not read carefully.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming mostly follows a consistent verb_noun pattern with the 'ateam_' prefix (e.g., ateam_get_solution, ateam_create_connector, ateam_test_skill). Minor deviations include ateam_patch (missing object) and ateam_redeploy (verb only), but overall the pattern is predictable and clear.

Tool Count3/5

With 47 tools, the count is high and exceeds the typical 15-tool threshold for a well-scoped set. However, the tools cover a broad and complex platform (auth, deployment, testing, GitHub integration, scaffolding), and each tool appears to have a distinct role, making the count borderline acceptable rather than excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of building, deploying, testing, and managing A-Team solutions, including design, GitHub integration, and verification. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for deleting individual files (though patching can overwrite) and no standalone skill listing, but these are not critical dead ends for an agent.

Resources