Repository Manager

Template

rm_workspace_template

Set up and save workspace configuration from a template, then run version-bump maintenance across managed repositories.

Instructions

Template (rm_workspace). Core workspace organization, configuration, and maintenance.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`part`	No	Version part to bump for 'maintain' (major, minor, patch).	patch
`force`	No	For 'maintain': bump even when no code changes are detected, and override an orphan local 'next-version' tag (delete it and re-bump) — only if that tag is NOT on the remote.
`phase`	No	Starting phase number for 'maintain'.
`job_id`	No	Job ID to check status for 'maintain_status' action.
`dry_run`	No	Perform a dry run for 'maintain'.
`install`	No	For 'setup': after clone/pull, materialize each project's .uv-workspace-siblings/agent-connector-sdk symlink and run `uv sync`, dependency-ordered (agent-connector-sdk first, since every fleet member depends on it and it is not yet published to PyPI at the required floor). Best-effort per project; a partial failure is reported (status='error' with per-project detail in 'data'), never masked as a uniform success. See CONCEPT:RM-BOOTSTRAP.
`summary`	No	For 'maintain_status': return a COMPACT roll-up (per-phase counts + failed set + active names + remaining count) instead of the full per-repo phase dump. Keeps the response inline at 200+ repos. Set False for the full per-repo detail.
`projects`	No	For 'maintain': comma-separated repo names to bump ONLY those (e.g. re-bump repos a prior run skipped) instead of the whole topological set. Restricts the bulk phase to these names.
`yml_path`	No	Path to workspace.yml (for 'setup', 'template', 'save').
`auto_start`	No	For 'maintain': begin at the lowest phase with repository changes instead of always 'phase', cascading to every later phase and skipping unchanged upstream phases. Default True; set False to start at 'phase'. Ignored when 'projects' or 'force' is set.
`config_dict`	No	Dictionary representation of WorkspaceConfig (for 'save').
`use_default`	No	Use the pre-filled package template for 'template'.
`fleet_evidence_json`	No	Bounded immutable reference JSON for fleet_evidence_check.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.1Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

D1.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows it is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds a vague domain label ('workspace organization, configuration, and maintenance') but no behavioral context such as what gets mutated, permission needs, or side effects. It does not contradict annotations, but it adds almost no value beyond them.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is two short sentences but severely under-specified. It is not verbose, yet it fails to earn its place by omitting essential information about the tool's purpose and actions. This is under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with 13 parameters, multiple implied actions (setup, maintain, template, save, maintain_status, fleet_evidence_check), and an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It omits any explanation of the tool's capabilities, the available actions, or how to select the right parameters. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each of the 13 parameters is already thoroughly documented in the schema. The description provides no additional parameter meaning or mapping to actions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description contributes nothing.

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

Purpose1/5

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

The description 'Template (rm_workspace). Core workspace organization, configuration, and maintenance.' merely restates the tool name and title with a generic domain label. It provides no specific verb or resource, and does not distinguish the tool from siblings like rm_workspace_setup or rm_workspace_maintain. An agent cannot tell what this tool actually does.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context, no exclusions, and no mention of the multiple actions (setup, maintain, template, save) that the parameters imply. Usage is completely left to inference.

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

Deploy Server