Push the current deployed solution to GitHub. Auto-creates the repo on first use. Commits the full bundle (solution + skills + connector source) atomically. Use after ateam_build_and_run to version your solution, or anytime you want to snapshot the current state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | Optional commit message (default: 'Deploy <solution_id>') | |
| solution_id | Yes | The solution ID (e.g. 'smart-home-assistant') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: auto-creates the repo on first use and commits the full bundle atomically. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, remote conflict handling, or whether the push is a force push, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence provides distinct value: the primary function, key behaviors, and usage guidance. No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists and annotations are absent, but the description covers inputs (via schema), side effects, and usage timing. It omits response/error details, but for a straightforward push operation, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, which already documents solution_id and the optional commit message. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Push') and resource ('current deployed solution to GitHub'), and adds unique context about auto-creating the repo and committing the full bundle atomically. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ateam_github_pull or ateam_github_write.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells when to use the tool: after ateam_build_and_run to version the solution, or anytime to snapshot the current state. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the referenced build tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.
