Skip to main content
Glama

ateam-mcp

by io.github.ariekogan

ateam_test_abort

Abort a running test. Pass chain_id to abort the WHOLE run — every job in the chain — and get back which ones stopped. Aborting by job_id stops that job only, leaving handoffs running. Stops at the next iteration boundary. (Advanced.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idNoAbort ONE job only. Prefer chain_id: aborting the root leaves handoffs running while reporting the test aborted.
actor_idNoOptional. WHO is asking. A job belongs to an actor and Core enforces that on per-job reads, so a tenant key alone is refused. Usually unnecessary — the session remembers the actor from ateam_conversation/ateam_test_skill. Pass it to inspect a job run by a DIFFERENT actor (e.g. a real user's).
chain_idNoTHE EXECUTION'S IDENTITY — what ateam_conversation returns and what you actually hold. A chain is the whole run: root job + every handoff + every askAnySkill subcall. Prefer this.
skill_idNoThe skill ID
solution_idYesThe solution ID

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: scope of destruction (whole chain vs a single job), side effects (handoffs keep running on job-level aborts), timing (stops at the next iteration boundary), and return content (which ones stopped). The '(Advanced.)' tag signals elevated risk, though reversibility and preconditions (test must be running) are unstated.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then the chain_id/job_id contrast, then the boundary behavior and risk flag. Every sentence earns its place and the key decision (which identifier to pass) is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The two abort modes are covered thoroughly, but the only required parameter is solution_id and the description never explains what passing solution_id alone does, nor is the return format (beyond 'which ones stopped') specified. With no output schema and no annotations, that is a real gap for a destructive control tool.

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% and the parameter descriptions are already rich — chain_id is called 'THE EXECUTION'S IDENTITY' and job_id warns that aborting the root leaves handoffs running. The main description re-echoes the chain/job distinction rather than adding new per-parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Abort a running test') and immediately differentiates the two abort scopes: chain_id kills the whole run, job_id stops a single job only. This distinguishes it from the test-family siblings (ateam_test_status checks status, ateam_test_skill runs a skill) without needing their schemas.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent which mode to use when: chain_id aborts the whole run, job_id stops one job while leaving handoffs running, and the schema reinforces the preference ('Prefer chain_id'). It does not, however, state when not to abort or route to an alternative such as ateam_test_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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