Skip to main content
Glama

ateam-mcp

by io.github.ariekogan

ateam_create_plugin

Scaffold a UI plugin (iframe HTML, React Native TSX, or both) inside an existing connector. Eliminates ~50% of identical plugin boilerplate (imports, theme/bridge hooks, postMessage protocol, default export shape). You then fill in the component body. Use kind='iframe' for web-only, 'rn' for mobile-only, 'adaptive' for both. Also writes ui-dist//manifest.json with the required render block.

⚠️ RENDERING IS NOT AUTOMATIC. At deploy, Phase 5 discovers plugins by calling each connector's ui.listPlugins + ui.getPlugin — a plugin only appears (and renders) if the connector ADVERTISES it there with a render.{mode, iframeUrl?, reactNative?} block. Dropping the scaffold files alone does NOT register it. If the connector generates its plugin list from ui-dist//manifest.json, the emitted manifest is picked up automatically; if the connector has a HARDCODED list (e.g. personal-assistant-ui-mcp: UI_PLUGINS[] + PLUGIN_MANIFESTS{} in server.js), you MUST add this plugin there (copy the render block from the manifest.json). Verify after deploy with ateam_get_solution(solution_id, 'connectors_health') or ateam_get_widget_catalog. Then declare it at solution ui_plugins[] so a skill can open it via sys.focusUiPlugin (see ateam_get_spec topic:'widgets').

The scaffold MERGES into the existing connector (server.js + other files preserved) — works on GitHub-backed AND repo-less tenants; merge base is the GitHub repo when connected, else the deployed connector source.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoRender mode. 'adaptive' (default) produces both iframe + RN scaffolds.
plugin_nameYesPlugin name (lowercase-with-dashes). E.g. 'memories-panel'. Becomes the dir name.
solution_idYesThe solution ID
connector_idYesExisting connector to add the plugin into (e.g. 'personal-assistant-ui-mcp')

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses critical behaviors: rendering is not automatic, the plugin must be advertised in the connector, and scaffold merges into existing connector. It warns about hardcoded lists and provides verification steps.

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 paragraphs and a prominent warning. Each sentence conveys necessary information for a complex scaffolding tool, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5 due to slight verbosity.

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?

The description covers the full workflow: scaffolding, manifest generation, deployment prerequisites, verification, and integration into the solution. It accounts for both GitHub-backed and repo-less tenants, making it highly complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics for 'kind' (explaining default 'adaptive') and gives a concrete example for 'plugin_name', raising the score to 4.

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 function with a specific verb ('Scaffold') and resource ('UI plugin inside an existing connector'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ateam_create_connector by focusing on plugin creation.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use different kind values ('iframe' for web-only, 'rn' for mobile-only, 'adaptive' for both). It also gives follow-up steps (declaring ui_plugins) and verification methods, but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools.

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