Skip to main content
Glama
OtaKit

OtaKit

Official
by OtaKit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Publish an OtaKit release

publish_release
DestructiveIdempotent

Publish a reviewed OtaKit bundle to an exact release lane safely: require expected current release and an idempotency key, and report manifest_sync_pending rather than false success.

Instructions

Publish a reviewed bundle to an exact lane. Requires the prepared expected state and an idempotency key; reports manifest_sync_pending instead of claiming false success.

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
idempotencyKeyYesStable key reused only when retrying this exact mutation
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
expectedCurrentReleaseIdYesRelease ID shown by prepare, or null when the lane had no release

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.9.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds non-obvious semantics beyond them: the expected-state guard, the idempotency key contract, and notably that a pending sync is reported as manifest_sync_pending rather than false success. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance annotations cannot convey.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the requirements and the honesty caveat. Zero filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive, open-world publish mutation with no output schema, the description covers requirements and the failure-reporting behavior. It does not mention permissions/scope needs or what the response looks like, but the critical calling contract is present.

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 all 12 parameters (including expectedCurrentReleaseId and idempotencyKey) are already documented in the schema. The description reiterates the expected-state and idempotency concepts but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Publish a reviewed bundle to an exact lane'), and the scoping phrase 'exact lane' plus 'prepared expected state' distinguishes it from prepare_release and revert_release among the siblings.

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?

Names the precondition ('reviewed bundle', 'prepared expected state') and the idempotency requirement, which implies this runs after prepare_release. However, it never explicitly names prepare_release/prepare_revert as the prerequisite tool or states when not to use it.

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