Skip to main content
Glama

ateam-mcp

by io.github.ariekogan

ateam_get_spec

Get the A-Team specification — schemas, validation rules, system tools, agent guides, and templates. Start here after bootstrap to understand how to build skills and solutions. Use 'section' to get just one part of the skill spec (much smaller than the full spec). Use 'search' to find specific fields or concepts across the spec.

When designing a persona that orchestrates logic via run_python_script (the Python-as-orchestrator pattern), also fetch topic='python_helpers' — that returns the adas.* helper namespace reference. Skills designed without knowing about adas.* produce 5-10x larger / brittler scripts.

When wiring widgets (UI plugins) into a solution, fetch topic='widgets' — that returns the widget spec (catalog model, how_to_use blocks, opener_call shape, persona phrasing rules, binding semantics) so you can declare ui_plugins correctly. For the live catalog of widgets actually available in a deployed tenant, use ateam_get_widget_catalog instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicYesWhat to fetch: 'overview' = API overview + endpoints, 'skill' = full skill spec, 'solution' = full solution spec, 'enums' = all enum values, 'connector-multi-user' = multi-user connector guide, 'python_helpers' = adas.* helper namespace for run_python_script orchestration (read this when designing personas that read state → call tools → checkpoint → status; without it, scripts hand-roll JSON parsing and tool delegation = 5-10x larger and brittler), 'widgets' = widget (UI plugin) spec: catalog model, how_to_use block shape (solution.json snippet + opener_call + persona_phrasing + binding_notes), and rules for declaring ui_plugins. Pair with ateam_get_widget_catalog for the live per-tenant inventory. 'ui-plugins' = the DEEP React Native (mobile) plugin build guide: author in rn-src/, compile with a build:rn esbuild script (format=cjs, target=es2015, external react/react-native/@adas/plugin-sdk) to rn-bundle/index.bundle.js, plain-object export — read this before authoring any MOBILE widget. 'monitoring' = THE MONITORING CONTRACT: which tools are safe to call in a poll loop (with cost / poll interval / whether output stays bounded as the run grows), which are not and what to use instead, plus the running ateam-mcp version. Read this BEFORE writing any loop that watches a build — the safe poll is ateam_chain_status, never ateam_get_chain.
searchNoOptional: filter the spec to only sections containing this search term. Works with any topic. Example: search='bootstrap' returns only fields/sections mentioning 'bootstrap'.
sectionNoOptional: get just one section of the skill spec (only works with topic='skill'). Sections: 'engine' = model/reasoning/planner optimization/bootstrap tools, 'tools' = tool definitions/meta tools, 'intents' = intents/problem/scenarios, 'policy' = access control/grants/workflows, 'triggers' = automation triggers, 'connectors' = connector linking/channels, 'role' = persona/goals, 'template' = minimal quick start, 'guide' = build steps/common mistakes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses size/scope behavior ('much smaller than the full spec'), consequences of omission ('5-10x larger / brittler scripts'), and per-topic content expectations (widget spec contents, monitoring contract cautions in the schema). It stops short of explicitly declaring side-effect-free read behavior or describing the return format, which with no annotations or output schema is a minor remaining gap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the body is organized by scenario (section/search, python_helpers, widgets), making it scannable for an agent. Every paragraph earns its place. It loses one point for redundancy with the schema — the '5-10x larger / brittler' claim and the widgets content breakdown appear nearly verbatim in the topic parameter description.

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?

Given high complexity (16 enum values across 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description plus schema cover the major usage workflows thoroughly: bootstrap sequence, partial fetches, orchestration personas, widget wiring, and the monitoring contract. The gap is that no description anywhere explains the shape or structure of the returned specification document, which matters since there is no output schema to fill that in.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with unusually rich per-enum explanations, so baseline is 3. The description adds value above the schema by explaining workflow-level meaning: why python_helpers matters for orchestration personas, what declaring ui_plugins correctly requires, and the relationship between widgets topic and the live catalog tool. This exceeds the baseline but the schema still does the heavy lifting for most parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the A-Team specification — schemas, validation rules, system tools, agent guides, and templates.' The scope is enumerated concretely, and it explicitly differentiates from the sibling ateam_get_widget_catalog ('For the live catalog... use ateam_get_widget_catalog instead'). An agent can tell this tool apart from its siblings without opening any other definitions.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Start here after bootstrap,' use 'section' for a smaller subset, use 'search' to find specific fields, fetch topic='python_helpers' when designing personas using the Python-as-orchestrator pattern, and fetch topic='widgets' when wiring UI plugins. It names the alternative tool explicitly for the live catalog case. No inference is required — the conditions and alternatives are spelled out.

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