Skip to main content
Glama

ateam-mcp

by io.github.ariekogan

ateam_test_skill

Send a test message to a deployed skill and get the execution result.

Wait modes (wait_for): • 'root' (default, back-compat) — wait until the message's root job completes, return single-job result. Fast, ignores any sub-skills the root delegated to via askAnySkill. • 'chain' — wait until EVERY job in the chain (root + handoffs + askAnySkill subcalls, recursively) reaches a terminal state, then return the full chain tree. Use when testing multi-skill flows (orchestrator → workers, builders → sub-builders, etc.). The response.chain field carries chainJobs[] with parentJobId/relation/depth and executionSteps[] with tool-nesting (opId/parentOpId/_toolDepth).

Legacy: wait:false is equivalent to wait_for:'never' — returns job_id immediately for polling via ateam_test_status. wait:true is the same as the default wait_for:'root'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
waitNoLegacy: if false, return job_id immediately for polling. If true or omitted, behaves like wait_for:'root'. Prefer wait_for going forward.
messageYesThe test message to send to the skill
actor_idNoOptional actor ID for conversation continuity. Pass the actor_id from a previous test response to continue the conversation. Omit to auto-generate a test actor (test_<timestamp>_<random>, auto-expires in 24h).
skill_idYesThe skill ID to test (original or internal ID)
wait_forNoWhat to wait for before returning. 'root' (default) = root job done; 'chain' = every chain job terminal (use for multi-skill flows); 'never' = return job_id immediately (poll via ateam_test_status). When 'chain', the response includes the chain tree under response.chain.
solution_idYesThe solution ID
chain_timeout_msNoOptional. Max total ms to wait when wait_for:'chain'. Default 300000 (5 min). Long-running chains (skill-factory, large bundle builds) may need higher. Clamped to [10000, 900000].

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the wait modes (root, chain, never), the legacy wait parameter mapping, and the response.chain structure including chainJobs[] and executionSteps[]. However, it does not mention potential side effects of executing the skill or error handling, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description is well-structured and appropriately sized: a one-sentence purpose, a bulleted list for wait modes, and a brief legacy note. No wasted words; every sentence contributes essential information.

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 tells the user exactly what to expect in each wait mode: a single-job result for 'root', the full chain tree with chainJobs[] and executionSteps[] for 'chain', and a job_id for 'never'. It also covers legacy behavior and the timeout clamping in the schema, making it complete for a 7-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, but the description adds meaningful semantics for the wait_for/wait parameters: 'root' as back-compat default, 'chain' waiting for every job recursively, and legacy wait:false/true equivalences. This goes beyond the schema's enum descriptions, adding significant value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Send a test message to a deployed skill and get the execution result.' This is a specific verb+resource+outcome that distinguishes it from siblings like ateam_test_status (which polls) and ateam_test_connector (tests connectors).

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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use when testing multi-skill flows' for wait_for:'chain', contrasts root vs chain, and names ateam_test_status as the polling alternative for wait:'never'. This clearly communicates when and how to use the tool.

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