Skip to main content
Glama

RationalBloks

by io.github.rationalbloks
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Deploy to Staging

deploy_staging

Deploy a project's saved schema to the staging environment. This triggers: (1) Schema validation, (2) Docker image build, (3) GitHub commit, (4) Kubernetes deployment, (5) Database migrations. The operation is ASYNCHRONOUS - it returns immediately with a job_id. Use get_job_status with the job_id to monitor progress. Deployment typically takes 2-5 minutes depending on schema complexity. If deployment fails, read the job's error first: one that starts with 'RationalBloks platform error' is the platform's, not the schema's. Otherwise check: (1) Schema format is FLAT (no 'fields' nesting), (2) Every field has a 'type' property, (3) Foreign keys reference existing tables, (4) No PostgreSQL reserved words in table/field names. Use get_project_info to see if the deployment succeeded. A plan that drops data is refused, naming every table, field, entity or relationship it would drop, and every field whose type change rounds or cuts its values (a decimal with a smaller scale or turned integer, a datetime turned date): deploy_destructive applies it, a tool of its own so a client asks before it runs. One operation runs on a project at a time: while another runs, the call is refused and the refusal names the running job; wait for it with get_job_status, then call again. While RationalBloks is being updated, the call is refused with 'RationalBloks is being updated': call it again in a few minutes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID (UUID)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm_destructive
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Set true only after reviewing the plan: a deploy that drops tables, columns, entities, relationships or fields is refused without it",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm_destructive
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set true only after reviewing the plan: a deploy that drops tables, columns, entities, relationships or fields is refused without it",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false/idempotentHint=false; the description adds the async contract, the returned job_id, a 2-5 minute duration, the one-operation-per-project lock with a named refusal, the maintenance-window refusal, and the fact that data-dropping plans are refused here and handled by deploy_destructive. No description content conflicts with the destructiveHint=false annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and async contract, and nearly every sentence carries behavioral or routing value. It is dense and includes a few run-on sentences (the destructive-plan explanation names many sub-cases), which slightly hurts readability, but there is little genuine waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates fully: it explains that the call returns immediately with a job_id, how to poll progress, how long it takes, and how to interpret success or failure. Everything an agent needs to invoke and follow through is present.

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% (project_id documented as 'Project ID (UUID)'), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the single parameter, so the baseline of 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 ('Deploy a project's saved schema to the staging environment') and enumerates the five pipeline steps the operation triggers. It also names the sibling it is not ('deploy_destructive applies it, a tool of its own'), letting an agent route destructive plans elsewhere without opening a schema.

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 routes follow-up work: use get_job_status with the returned job_id to monitor, use get_project_info to confirm success, retry later when a concurrency or maintenance refusal occurs. It even explains when to read a job error versus when to fix the schema, which is more than most definitions offer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All RationalBloks toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources