Skip to main content
Glama

ateam-mcp

by io.github.ariekogan

ateam_verify_consistency

Check that the Builder filesystem state and GitHub state are in sync for a solution. Read-only probe — does NOT trigger a deploy.

Returns: • ok: true + drifts: [] if everything matches • ok: false + drifts: [{path, kind}] listing files that differ (kinds: fs_missing, gh_missing, content_differs)

Drift can creep in when GitHub writes happen but Builder FS doesn't get the mirror update (network blip, container restart mid-write). Boot sync heals most of it on next backend restart; this tool surfaces drift earlier.

Run after a series of ateam_github_patch calls to confirm the Builder backend is consistent with GitHub before you ateam_build_and_run.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
solution_idYesThe solution ID to verify

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though no annotations are present, the description fully discloses read-only behavior ('does NOT trigger a deploy'), defines exact return structure (ok, drifts with kinds), and explains drift cause. This is strong behavioral transparency for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Description is well-structured with a leading one-sentence summary, bulleted return format, and a short implementation note. All sections earn their place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description compensates by detailing both success and failure return values including drift kinds. It also provides use-case context and sibling sequencing, making it fully self-contained for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Only one parameter, solution_id, is already fully described in the schema as 'The solution ID to verify' (100% coverage). The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond using the phrase 'for a solution', so 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Check that ... are in sync' and identifies the exact resource (Builder filesystem state vs GitHub state). The phrase 'Read-only probe — does NOT trigger a deploy' clarifies its non-mutating nature, distinguishing it from deploy/update tools like ateam_redeploy or ateam_github_patch.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Run after a series of ateam_github_patch calls' and before 'ateam_build_and_run', providing clear temporal context. It also contrasts with boot-sync healing, implying when early verification is valuable and when it is unnecessary.

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