Register a repository into the local workflow context so SDLC tasks can reference it. Provide a repository alias, and optionally a URL and journey ID, to onboard it.
Onboard a repository into the local workflow context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| journeyId | No | ||
| repositoryUrl | No | ||
| repositoryAlias | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states whether onboarding is idempotent, what state it creates or mutates, whether a journey must already exist, or what happens on conflicting aliases/URLs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient density. It is concise without being informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter, mutation-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description omits nearly everything an agent needs: prerequisites, side effects, and the meaning of each argument.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 3 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain them, but it mentions only the general 'repository' concept and says nothing about repositoryAlias being required, what journeyId binds to, or how repositoryUrl is used. No compensation for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description pairs a specific verb ('Onboard') with a resource ('repository'), but 'local workflow context' is vague and does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as workflow_onboard_journey or workflow_scan_repository_context. An agent knows the general area but not the precise effect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like workflow_onboard_journey or workflow_scan_repository_context. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.