Skip to main content
Glama
Coalesce-Software-Inc

coalesce-transform-mcp

Official

COA Doctor

coa_doctor
Read-onlyIdempotent

Diagnose and verify local COA project setup by validating data.yml, workspaces.yml, credentials, and warehouse connectivity.

Instructions

Run coa doctor against a local COA project — checks data.yml, workspaces.yml, credentials, and warehouse connectivity.

KNOWN ISSUE (CD-16983): doctor reports the profile selected via workspaces.yml / --workspace, but coa_plan / coa_deploy / coa_refresh resolve profile differently — they fall through to the [default] profile in ~/.coa/config unless --profile or COALESCE_PROFILE is set. A green doctor result does NOT guarantee that plan/deploy will authenticate against the same cloud account. When a user reports plan/deploy auth mismatches, suspect profile divergence before blaming credentials. Platform fix approach still under discussion.

Args:

  • projectPath (string, required): Path to the COA project root (directory with data.yml)

  • workspace (string, optional): workspaces.yml workspace name (default: dev)

Returns: { command, exitCode, stdout, stderr, timedOut, json?, coaVersion, preflightWarnings? }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workspaceNoCOA workspace name from workspaces.yml. Defaults to 'dev'.
projectPathYesAbsolute or relative path to the COA project root (the directory containing data.yml).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jsonNo
stderrYes
stdoutYes
commandYes
exitCodeYes
timedOutYes
coaVersionYes
jsonParseErrorNo
preflightWarningsNo
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context about profile resolution differences and the known issue, going beyond what annotations cover.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and input details, then the known issue. While the known issue paragraph is lengthy, it's important and well-structured. Minor verbosity but earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's diagnostic nature and output schema, the description explains what is checked, the known limitation, and uses the input schema well. It provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates parameter purposes (projectPath as COA project root, workspace with default 'dev') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 runs 'coa doctor' to check data.yml, workspaces.yml, credentials, and warehouse connectivity. It specifies a diagnostic/validation role, which distinguishes it from siblings like coa_deploy or coa_plan.

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 includes an explicit known issue (CD-16983) explaining when not to rely solely on this tool (green result doesn't guarantee auth matching for plan/deploy) and advises to suspect profile divergence. This provides clear when-not-to-use and alternative debugging steps.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Coalesce-Software-Inc/coalesce-transform-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server