Show the minimal authoring view of a solution — name + description + style + routing_mode + identity_mode + skill ids + connector ids only. Skips deployed metadata, handoffs (auto-generated), grants, ui_plugins, validation results. Use this for fast inspection without the verbose fields (Phase 9 of the strip).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| solution_id | Yes | The solution ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses exactly which fields are included and which are omitted (deployed metadata, handoffs, grants, ui_plugins, validation results), setting expectations for output. Minor gap: no mention of read-only nature or error behavior, but 'Show' and 'inspection' imply non-mutating.
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 compact and information-dense, front-loading purpose and field list. The cryptic reference to 'Phase 9 of the strip' adds little for an outside agent and could be removed.
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?
Given the single parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns and what it omits. It lacks explicit return formatting or error cases, but for a minimal-inspection tool this is sufficient.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (solution_id with description 'The solution ID'). The description adds no additional parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') with a specific resource ('minimal authoring view of a solution') and enumerates exact fields included, clearly distinguishing it from the fuller solution tools 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this for fast inspection without the verbose fields,' clearly indicating the intended scenario. It also lists what is skipped, providing an implicit exclusion; however, it does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly.
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.
