Skip to main content
Glama

ateam-mcp

by io.github.ariekogan

ateam_github_promote

SHIP DEV TO PROD. Merges the dev branch into main and auto-tags the new main HEAD as safe-YYYY-MM-DD-NNN. Use after testing your dev work, when you're ready to deploy changes to production.

Workflow: 1) ateam_github_patch (writes to dev) → 2) ateam_github_promote (merges dev→main) → 3) ateam_build_and_run (deploys main).

Pass dry_run:true to see what's about to ship without merging.

ON 409 MERGE CONFLICT: main holds commits dev never received. Call ateam_github_sync_from_main(solution_id) to merge main into dev, then promote again. Only if THAT also returns 409 did both sides edit the same lines — that one needs a human (open a PR on GitHub).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelNoOptional: human-readable label for the auto-tag (e.g., 'v2 stable', 'before refactor')
dry_runNoIf true: show the diff (commits + files about to ship) without merging. Default: false.
skip_tagNoIf true: merge without creating an auto-tag. Default: false (auto-tag enabled).
solution_idYesThe solution ID

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the merge side effect, auto-tag format, dry-run behavior, and the 409 recovery path, giving the agent a clear model of what will happen and how failures should be handled.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then organized into workflow, dry-run, and conflict-handling blocks. Every sentence earns its place; although it is longer than average, there is no filler and the structure aids quick parsing.

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 deploy/promote tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the normal path, the preview path, and the conflict escalation path. It also names the exact sibling tools and the order in which they should be used, making the tool callable in context.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds useful context about the tag format and dry-run behavior, but it does not materially add per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'SHIP DEV TO PROD. Merges the dev branch into main and auto-tags...', naming a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly differentiates from siblings via the workflow: ateam_github_patch writes to dev, ateam_github_promote merges dev→main, and ateam_build_and_run deploys main.

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?

It states exactly when to use the tool: 'Use after testing your dev work, when you're ready to deploy changes to production.' It also gives the numbered workflow and explicit conflict-handling alternatives: call ateam_github_sync_from_main on a 409, retry promote, and only escalate to a human PR if a second 409 occurs.

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