Skip to main content
Glama

ateam-mcp

by io.github.ariekogan

ateam_github_read

Read any file from a solution's GitHub repo. Returns the file content. Use this to read connector source code, skill definitions, or any versioned file. Default reads from main (deployed/prod state). Pass ref: 'dev' to read in-progress work.

⚠️ NOT RUNTIME STATE. For solution.json and skills/<id>/skill.json this returns a git MIRROR, not what is deployed. Connector-imported tools are regenerated at deploy time, so a repo copy's tools[] can differ from production (on one solution dev showed 29 tools while production ran 66). Reads of those paths carry an _ateam_representation field saying what you are holding. To answer "what can this skill actually do?", call ateam_get_solution(solution_id, skill_id, section:'tools') — never this tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoBranch, tag, or commit SHA to read from. Default: 'main' (prod). Use 'dev' to read in-progress work.main
pathYesFile path in the repo (e.g. 'connectors/home-assistant-mcp/server.js', 'solution.json', 'skills/order-support/skill.json')
branchNoBranch to read/write (alias for `ref`). Declared so MCP does not strip it — an undeclared argument is dropped silently, which made a branch:"dev" read return `main` with no error.
solution_idYesThe solution ID

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and uses it well: it discloses the git-mirror trap for solution.json and skill.json, deploy-time regeneration of connector-imported tools, the 29-vs-66 tools discrepancy, and the _ateam_representation field. This far exceeds typical read/write hints.

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 definition is front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then the ref workflow, then a clearly marked warning. The concrete example and _ateam_representation note earn their place because they prevent confident but incorrect reads; there is no filler.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description still equips an agent with purpose, ref semantics, the mirror-vs-runtime caveat, the representation field, and the correct fallback tool for runtime capability questions. A caller can use it correctly without needing sibling tool docs.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Even though the input schema covers all four parameters, the description adds operational meaning: default main corresponds to prod state, passing ref: 'dev' reads in-progress work, and path examples map directly to intended uses. The branch-alias footgun is explained in the schema, while the main description reinforces the ref workflow.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read any file from a solution's GitHub repo') and immediately states the return value. It gives concrete use cases (connector source, skill definitions, versioned files) and heads off confusion with runtime tools by warning this is not runtime state. This clearly separates it from siblings like ateam_get_solution.

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?

Tells when to use it ('Use this to read connector source code, skill definitions, or any versioned file'), how to select a ref (main vs dev), and explicitly when not to use it: for runtime skill capability, call ateam_get_solution and 'never this tool.' The not-runtime-state warning provides a crisp exclusion criterion.

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