Skip to main content
Glama

ateam-mcp

by io.github.ariekogan

ateam_delete_solution

⚠️ IRREVERSIBLE — kills Mongo state, running MCP processes, and Builder FS for the whole solution and every skill. REQUIRES confirm:true AND confirm_solution_id echoing the solution id you're destroying (defeats typos and hallucinated ids). RECOVERY: the GitHub repo is untouched; ateam_github_pull rebuilds the solution from main. Prefer that over re-deploying from memory.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmYesREQUIRED. Must be exactly true. A missing/false value refuses the call with a recovery hint.
solution_idYesThe solution ID to delete
confirm_solution_idYesREQUIRED. Must exactly equal `solution_id`. This defeats typos and hallucinated ids — you can't wipe a solution you couldn't spell.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses irreversibility, exactly what is destroyed, mandatory confirmation parameters, and recovery via GitHub. This is comprehensive and prevents misuse.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only three sentences, front-loaded with a warning, then requirements, then recovery. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 the critical context: destructive scope, safety rails, and recovery. However, it does not mention the return value or whether deletion is synchronous, which could be relevant for an agent. The lack of an output schema makes this a minor gap.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the requirement that `confirm` must be true and `confirm_solution_id` must match `solution_id`. The description repeats these constraints but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states the tool deletes a solution, specifying exactly what gets destroyed: Mongo state, MCP processes, and Builder FS for the whole solution and every skill. This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like `ateam_delete_skill` by clarifying the full scope.

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 provides a recovery path (`ateam_github_pull`) and recommends it over re-deploying from memory, which helps the agent understand an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. other mutation tools (e.g., `ateam_redeploy`), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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