Apply a simulated repository decision as patch_only, local_branch, or remote_pr.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | ||
| base_branch | No | ||
| branch_name | No | ||
| snapshot_id | No | ||
| repository_id | Yes | ||
| simulation_id | Yes | ||
| commit_message | No | ||
| decision_plan_id | Yes | ||
| write_permission | No | ||
| pull_request_body | No | ||
| pull_request_title | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only lists the modes but does not explain what 'apply' entails (e.g., does it create a commit, push to remote, require write permissions?). No mention of side effects, authorization needs, or state changes, leaving the agent unaware of risks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure (e.g., no separation of key actions or parameters). It is not front-loaded with the most critical information. While not verbose, it could be more informative within the same length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 11 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits the purpose of the snapshot, the meaning of each mode, and the workflow context. An agent cannot reliably use this tool without significant additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but only mentions the enum parameter 'mode'. All 11 other parameters, including required ones like repository_id, decision_plan_id, simulation_id, remain unexplained in the description. The agent lacks meaning for these critical inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (apply) and the resource (simulated repository decision) and enumerates the three possible modes (patch_only, local_branch, remote_pr). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like simulate_repository, which creates the simulation, making the purpose specific and understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when each mode is appropriate. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a decision plan and simulation) or when not to use it. The context is entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources or actions, but there is some overlap (e.g., run_repository_fix vs run_repository_pipeline vs simulate_repository) that could cause confusion. Overall, descriptions help differentiate.
Tool names are primarily snake_case with a verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies (e.g., single-word verbs like 'simulate', 'tokenize', and mixed prefixes like 'preview_', 'product_'). The pattern is readable but not uniform.
With 140 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped for typical MCP usage. This overwhelms agents and suggests poor separation of concerns, likely violating the principle of minimal tool surfaces.
The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities including data onboarding, simulation, decisions, repository management, and admin operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update_agent_run), but core workflows are well-supported.
