Skip to main content
Glama

ateam_patch

Surgically update ANY field in a skill or solution definition, redeploy, and optionally re-test — all in one step.

⚠️ MERGE-BY-DEFAULT (v0.4.0) — Arrays are protected from silent replace. Bare array writes on solution.linked_skills / ui_plugins / platform_connectors / handoffs / grants / triggers (etc.) and skill.tools / connectors / handoffs / scenarios are REFUSED to prevent sibling loss. Add or remove items with the _push / _delete / _update suffixes; opt into a full-array replace only when you really mean it.

OPERATIONS (safe by construction):

  1. Scalar (dot notation): { "problem.statement": "new value", "role.persona": "You are..." }

  2. Deep nested: { "intents.thresholds.accept": 0.9, "policy.escalation.enabled": true }

  3. Array APPEND: { "tools_push": [{ name: "new_tool", description: "..." }] }

  4. Array REMOVE: { "tools_delete": ["tool_name"] }

  5. Array MODIFY-ONE: { "tools_update": [{ name: "existing_tool", description: "updated" }] }

  6. Full-array REPLACE (opt-in): { "linked_skills": [...], "linked_skills_replace": true } — or { _replace: true, ... } to opt every array in this call.

SOLUTION-LEVEL EXAMPLES (target='solution'):

  • ADD a skill to the solution: updates: { "linked_skills_push": ["my-new-skill"] } ← NOT { linked_skills: ["my-new-skill"] } (that would REFUSE — it drops your other skills)

  • REMOVE a skill: updates: { "linked_skills_delete": ["old-skill"] }

  • ADD a UI plugin: updates: { "ui_plugins_push": [{ id: "mcp:conn:panel", ... }] }

  • ADD a handoff: updates: { "handoffs_push": [{ id: "h1", ... }] }

SKILL-LEVEL EXAMPLES (target='skill' + skill_id):

  • Change persona: updates: { "role.persona": "You are a friendly assistant" }

  • Append to persona: updates: { "persona_append": "\n\nALWAYS respond in 2 sentences." }

  • Add a guardrail: updates: { "policy.guardrails.never_push": ["Never share passwords"] }

  • Add a tool: updates: { "tools_push": [{ name: "conn.tool", description: "...", inputs: [...], output: {...} }] }

  • Change intent: updates: { "intents.supported_update": [{ id: "i1", description: "new desc" }] }

  • CREATE a new skill: target='skill', skill_id='my-new-skill', updates: { "problem.statement": "...", "role.persona": "..." } — auto-scaffolded and added to solution topology.

PREVIEW BEFORE WRITING: pass dry_run:true to see the diff (arrays_merged, arrays_replaced, dropped_ids, added_ids) without applying. Use this before any destructive-looking edit.

VERDICT (skill target): the response carries a NON-BLOCKING validation block { skill_id, valid, ready_to_export, error_count, incomplete_sections[], unresolved_refs } — the patch always saves even if the def is now invalid, so CHECK valid: false and fix incomplete_sections before relying on it (build_and_run will refuse to deploy an invalid skill). error_count can include auto-import connector-tool artifacts, so act on incomplete_sections first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceNoWhere the solution/skill definition lives. Omit (DEFAULT) — prefer the tenant's GitHub repo (GitHub is master), but AUTO-DEGRADE to the Builder FS store if the tenant hasn't connected a repo, so a simple def patch always succeeds (it's pushed to GitHub once connected). 'github' — force GitHub; fails loud if not connected (use when you specifically require the repo write). 'local' — force the Builder FS store, no GitHub (repo-less bootstrap tenant). Redeploy is local in all modes.
targetYesWhat to update: 'solution' for solution definition, 'skill' for skill definition fields (problem, role, intents, tools, policy, engine, scenarios, etc.)
dry_runNoIf true, apply the patch in memory and return the diff (arrays_merged, arrays_replaced, dropped_ids, added_ids, would_write_bytes) WITHOUT writing to GitHub or redeploying. Preview a change before committing to it.
updatesYesThe update payload. Use dot notation for nested scalars (e.g. 'problem.statement': 'new value'). For arrays, use _push/_delete/_update suffixes (e.g. 'tools_push', 'tools_delete'). You can update ANY field in the skill definition: problem, role, intents, tools, policy, engine, scenarios, glossary, etc.
skill_idNoRequired when target is 'skill'. The skill ID to patch.
solution_idYesThe solution ID
test_messageNoOptional: re-test the skill after patching. Requires skill_id.
include_definitionNoIf true, return the FULL patched definition. Default false — the result returns a compact patched_summary instead, because the full definition can exceed the ~50KB output limit and truncate the rest of the result (redeploy status, widget_health).

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it excels: it discloses merge-by-default behavior, refusal of bare array writes, auto-degrade source handling, dry_run diff contents, non-blocking validation, and output-size truncation. It also warns that invalid definitions still save and that build_and_run will refuse to deploy them.

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?

The description is long, but the tool is complex and the length is mostly justified. It is well-structured with headers, warnings, operation patterns, and target-specific examples, and the most safety-critical merge warning appears early. Minor redundancy and verbosity prevent a 5.

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 the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the full calling context: target selection, update payloads, array pitfalls, preview/dry_run, source fallback, redeploy behavior, validation verdict, and response-size caveats. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly and interpret its results.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial operational meaning beyond the schema: dot-notation syntax, array suffix semantics, full-array replace opt-in, source enum fallback behavior, dry_run return fields, and include_definition's 50KB output-limit caveat. This is far more than the schema alone provides.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: surgically update any field in a skill or solution definition, then redeploy and optionally re-test. It clearly differentiates this from sibling GitHub patch, redeploy, and test tools by advertising the combined one-step workflow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives rich situational guidance: use dry_run before destructive-looking edits, prefer _push/_delete/_update suffixes, opt into full-array replace deliberately, and check validation incomplete_sections. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like ateam_github_patch or ateam_redeploy, but the context is strong enough for an agent to choose appropriately.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

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.