Skip to main content
Glama

ateam-mcp

by io.github.ariekogan

ateam_test_notification

Fire a REAL notification at an existing actor in a deployed solution — for end-to-end testing of the system-initiated notification path (telegram/push/app channels).

Unlike ateam_test_skill (synthetic test actor with no channels) and ateam_conversation (user-initiated thread), this calls the /api/internal/notify-user path that PCM and other sibling services use — so the actor's real enabled channels actually receive the message.

Use for: • Channel fan-out smoke (does telegram/push/app actually receive it?) • Delivery-result verification (per-channel ok/failed in the response).

Auth: forwards your authed api_key to Core (no master-secret involvement). Tenant is pinned by the key itself — cross-tenant targeting is structurally impossible.

⚠️ SAFETY: • The text is prefixed with [TEST] in the actual notification — visible to the user, anti-phishing. • Rate-limited: 10 calls/min per session. • Every call is audited (caller, tenant, actor, content hash) regardless of outcome. • actor_id is scoped to your tenant — cross-tenant targeting is rejected by Core's per-tenant Mongo isolation. • reply_handler is NOT supported via api-key auth (Core ignores it). Routing the user's next reply to an arbitrary skill is a privilege-escalation surface. For routing/engagement tests, use ateam_test_skill.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceNoAudit label for message.source. Default 'ateam-test'.
contentYesNotification text. Will be sent to all of the actor's enabled channels, prefixed with [TEST] for the recipient.
urgencyNoNotification urgency. Default 'normal'.
actor_idYesTarget actor ID in your tenant (e.g. 'usr_arie_admin_0001'). Must exist; Core rejects if not found in your tenant.
metadataNoOptional metadata merged into message.metadata. Useful for correlation IDs.
solution_idYesThe solution ID (required for tenant scoping + audit context).

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 discloses rate limiting (10 calls/min), audit trail, tenant scoping via Core's Mongo isolation, [TEST] prefix to prevent phishing, and the security rationale for ignoring reply_handler. This far exceeds baseline and fully compensates for missing annotations.

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?

Despite length, the description is organized into clear sections (purpose, usage, auth, safety) and every sentence delivers critical information. No filler or redundancy; the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description specifies the delivery-result verification outcome and covers auth, rate limits, tenant isolation, and audit. For a high-stakes testing tool, this is fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description supplements by explaining tenant scoping, [TEST] prefix, and rejection of cross-tenant actors, but most parameter meaning is already captured in the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Fire a REAL notification at an existing actor in a deployed solution' and explicitly contrasts with ateam_test_skill and ateam_conversation, distinguishing its system-initiated real-channel behavior. This fully differentiates it from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use for' bullets and an explicit alternative: 'For routing/engagement tests, use ateam_test_skill.' Also states when not to use (reply_handler unsupported). Clear context with exclusions and alternatives.

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