Skip to main content
Glama
OtaKit

OtaKit

Official
by OtaKit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Prepare an OtaKit release

prepare_release
Read-onlyIdempotent

Preview a bundle's current and proposed lane state and return expectedCurrentReleaseId before publishing, with no changes made.

Instructions

Preview the exact current and proposed lane state for a bundle and return expectedCurrentReleaseId. Makes no change.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appIdNoOtaKit app ID. Optional on a local connection whose project configures one; required otherwise.
channelYesNamed channel, or null for the base channel
bundleIdYesOtaKit bundle ID
autoRevertNoEnable rollback-share based automatic revert for this release
forceImmediateNoMake devices apply and reload on their next check
replaceRolloutNoRevert the lane's active rollout and publish this bundle in its place
rolloutPercentNoShare of devices (1-100, default 100) that receive this release; below 100 starts a gradual rollout on a lane that already has a release
autoRevertMinSampleNoWith autoRevert: completed trials (applied plus rolled back) needed before the share is trusted (10-100000, default 50)
autoRevertRatePercentNoWith autoRevert: share of completed update trials that rolled back, over 24 hours, that triggers the revert (1-95, default 20)
compatibilityDecisionNoWhen the bundle's native dependencies differ from the lane's current release: block (default) refuses; proceed publishes anyway, only after confirming no store build is needed; skip does not compare

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.9.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and "Makes no change" largely repeats it. The description adds the returned expectedCurrentReleaseId, but not the concurrency/precondition semantics that would make that field meaningful.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted clauses; the return field is named early. Minor redundancy: "Makes no change" restates readOnlyHint rather than adding new information.

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?

For a 10-parameter read-only preview tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does but omits how the preview is consumed (e.g., feeding expectedCurrentReleaseId into publish_release). Note the schema lists mutation-flavored params such as replaceRollout and forceImmediate that the description leaves unexplained in a dry-run context.

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% across 10 parameters, so the schema carries parameter meaning fully; baseline 3 applies. The description mentions no parameter behavior (rolloutPercent, compatibilityDecision, replaceRollout) beyond what the schema already documents.

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 object: preview the current and proposed lane state for a bundle, plus the concrete return field expectedCurrentReleaseId. The phrase "Makes no change" implicitly contrasts it with publish_release, but the sibling is never named, so the distinction must be inferred.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance; usage is only implied by "Preview" and "Makes no change." The natural pairing with publish_release (and why the returned expectedCurrentReleaseId matters) is left unstated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools