lightbulb-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

software_delivery_loop

Run a governed software delivery loop: turn feedback and SDLC context into code, open a pull request, and deploy to a target environment with tests and release gates.

Instructions

Run the governed software loop from MCP: feedback/SDLC -> coding -> PR -> deploy.

This is the main bridge for external coding tools. It routes through Lightbulb's IT/Ops orchestrator so repo binding, SDLC context, CloudOps, GitHub, HITL, tests, container release, and deployment gates travel together.

Args: coding_harness: Required when this request starts a new consulting project. Choose codex, claude_code, or chatgpt; additional harnesses can be added later.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`mode`	No	feedback_to_code
`open_pr`	No
`request`	Yes
`auto_push`	No
`repository`	No
`environment`	No	staging
`github_repo`	No
`project_key`	No
`extra_inputs`	No	{}
`github_owner`	No
`workspace_id`	No
`coding_harness`	No
`execute_coding`	No
`trigger_deploy`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1Sep 7, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / coding_harness
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Coding Harness",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description outlines the pipeline stages and mentions routing through an orchestrator, but it does not disclose potential side effects such as opening PRs, triggering deployments, or requiring approvals. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for transparency, which it only partially meets.

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 concise and well-structured: it front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence, adds a brief explanatory paragraph, and includes a short args note. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and is easy to scan.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool is complex with 14 parameters, yet the description only explains one parameter and does not mention output or return values. Many parameters remain ambiguous, and there is no information about expected results, making the description incomplete 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.

Parameters2/5

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

Only the coding_harness parameter is explained in the description, while the remaining 13 parameters (e.g., extra_inputs, open_pr, environment) have no schema descriptions and are not addressed in the text. This is insufficient for a tool with 14 parameters, especially when schema coverage is 0%.

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's purpose: running a governed software loop from MCP with stages feedback/SDLC -> coding -> PR -> deploy. It also identifies it as the main bridge for external coding tools, which is a specific and differentiating function among many sibling tools.

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?

The description gives a general usage hint ('main bridge for external coding tools') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide conditions for selection. The only parameter-specific guidance is for coding_harness, which is about a parameter, not overall tool usage.

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

Deploy Server