Skip to main content
Glama

ateam-mcp

by io.github.ariekogan

ateam_github_sync_from_main

BRING dev UP TO DATE WITH main — merges main into dev. The mirror of ateam_github_promote.

USE THIS WHEN PROMOTE RETURNS 409. promote only ships dev→main, so the moment anything lands on main directly — a hotfix, a manual edit, an ateam_github_rollback, or a write that mis-targeted the branch — dev falls behind and can never be promoted again. Without this tool that divergence is unfixable from A-Team: the only exits are the GitHub web UI or a raw API call.

Workflow on a 409: 1) ateam_github_diff (confirm status:'diverged') → 2) ateam_github_sync_from_main → 3) ateam_github_promote.

Pass dry_run:true FIRST to see exactly which commits and files would come into dev without changing anything.

This is a real merge, not a force: if main and dev edited the SAME lines it returns 409 too, and that one genuinely needs a human (open a PR).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNoIf true: show the commits + files that would merge into dev, change nothing. Default: false. Call this first.
solution_idYesThe solution ID

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it clarifies this is a real merge rather than a force, describes the dry_run behavior as change-free, and discloses that a 409 can also mean conflicting same-line edits. This goes well beyond a generic 'syncs branches' statement.

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?

Although the description is longer than average, every sentence earns its place: purpose, trigger condition, workflow, dry-run safety, and conflict caveat are all present and front-loaded. The structure moves from most important usage information to edge-case caveats.

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 is highly complete for a mutating sync tool: it covers when to use, workflow, dry-run behavior, and failure modes. It does not describe the success return payload, but in the absence of an output schema this is a minor gap given that the tool's effect ('dev is up to date with main') is clear from the purpose statement.

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 the schema already documents both parameters clearly. The description reinforces the 'call dry_run first' behavior but does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('merges main into dev') and explicitly distinguishes itself as the mirror of ateam_github_promote. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from related GitHub tools.

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?

The description gives a precise trigger condition ('USE THIS WHEN PROMOTE RETURNS 409'), explains why promote alone cannot fix divergence, and provides a step-by-step workflow involving ateam_github_diff, this tool, and ateam_github_promote. It also explicitly warns when this tool is NOT appropriate (same-line conflicts requiring a human PR).

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