Skip to main content
Glama
mcp-repo-release-tools

mcp-repo-release-tools

Run the declared check lines against their expected exits

rrt_gate_run
Destructive

Runs repository-declared gate lines and validates each against its expected exit code, reporting per-line results instead of stopping at the first expected failure; dry-run by default.

Instructions

Run [[tool.rrt.gates]] lines; every line runs and is judged against expect.

Each line returns exit, expected_exit and ok, so a deliberately-red check that fails as designed reads as ok, and an unexpected failure does not. Use instead of chaining checks with &&, which stops at the first expected red line. dry_run=True by default, because the lines are repository-declared commands.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "rrt_gate_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
namesNo
dry_runNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
errorNo
linesNo
dry_runYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.19.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Adds genuine context beyond the annotations: all lines run regardless of failures, and dry_run defaults to True because the lines are repository-declared commands. With destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, however, the description never says what actually happens when dry_run is disabled, nor warns that arbitrary repo commands execute.

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 action, then the result semantics, then the alternative and the safety default. Roughly four sentences, all earning their place, though the `[[tool.rrt.gates]]` placeholder syntax is opaque on first read.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the judging semantics are covered. Still missing for a two-parameter, destructive-capable tool are the meaning of `names` and the consequences of a non-dry run.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the rationale for dry_run's default but never explains `names` at all, leaving the selection/filter behavior of the primary parameter entirely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: it runs the `[[tool.rrt.gates]]` lines and judges each against `expect`. The judging semantics (deliberately-red checks read as ok) separate it from a plain command runner. It never names a sibling tool directly, so differentiation is by concept rather than by catalog.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to use this instead of chaining checks with `&&`, and gives the reason (chaining stops at the first expected red line). That is a real when-to-use plus an alternative. It gives no when-not guidance, e.g. how a partial `names` selection relates to running the full set.

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