Show GitHub sync status for ALL tenants and solutions in one call. Requires master key authentication. Returns a summary table of every tenant's solutions with their GitHub sync state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the name by stating the authentication requirement and the return format ('summary table'). The verb 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm no side effects or mention rate limits or failure modes. Still, it provides useful behavioral context for a simple status tool.
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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then add the authentication and return-format details. Every clause adds value with no redundancy or filler.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential elements: what it does, the required authentication, and the output nature. It could note potential limitations (e.g., requires admin privileges, performance across many tenants), but for a status-list tool, the description 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the description has no burden to explain parameters. The description instead clarifies what the result will contain (summary table of every tenant's solutions with GitHub sync state), which is helpful even without parameters. This aligns with the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('GitHub sync status for ALL tenants and solutions'). It also highlights its scope ('ALL tenants and solutions in one call'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ateam_github_status that likely target individual tenants or repositories.
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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires master key authentication'), which is a usage condition. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention that for a single tenant/solution, another tool might be more appropriate. The usage context is implied by the 'ALL' scope but not elaborated.
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.
