Skip to main content
Glama

ateam-mcp

by io.github.ariekogan

ateam_create_connector

Scaffold a new MCP connector with server.js + package.json + README. Eliminates ~50% of identical boilerplate (MCP server setup, tool registration, stdio transport). You then fill in the tool implementations. Set ui_capable=true to include ui.listPlugins / ui.getPlugin stubs (plugin source files added separately via ateam_create_plugin). After scaffolding, the files are uploaded to Core via the same path as ateam_upload_connector.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoHuman-readable name for the connector (e.g. 'Hue Lights'). Defaults to connector_id.
ui_capableNoIf true, include ui.listPlugins/ui.getPlugin handler stubs. Default: false.
solution_idYesThe solution ID
connector_idYesConnector ID (lowercase-with-dashes, no spaces). Becomes the directory name.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: eliminating boilerplate, including optional stubs, and uploading files to Core after scaffolding. However, it does not mention whether existing files are overwritten, what happens on failure, or any authentication/permission requirements, leaving some uncertainty.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses four sentences to convey necessary details: boilerplate reduction, fill-in step, ui_capable option, and upload path. It is slightly dense with parentheticals but remains concise and each sentence adds value.

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 what files are created, the optional ui_capable behavior, the relationship to plugin creation, and the upload mechanism. With no output schema and no annotations, it provides a reasonable level of completeness for a scaffolding tool, though it could be improved by stating prerequisites or error behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds context around ui_capable and connector_id but largely repeats what the schema says, so it provides baseline rather than enhanced semantic value.

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: 'Scaffold a new MCP connector with server.js + package.json + README.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning plugin files are handled separately (ateam_create_plugin) and that uploads follow the same path as ateam_upload_connector.

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?

The description implies this is for creating a new connector from scratch, stating you then 'fill in the tool implementations.' It references an alternative for plugin files (ateam_create_plugin) and clarifies the upload relationship with ateam_upload_connector, though it doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios.

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