Skip to main content
Glama

Apply config change

apply_config_change

Apply project, service, or pipeline configuration changes through a safe-operation flow with human approval and audit trail.

Instructions

Apply a config upsert through the local agent safe-operation flow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes
projectNo
serviceNoService config. Set service.language (go, node, python) as the service implementation language; it is required for local managed runtime.type=language deployments. For remote deployments, deployments[].host_ids must contain canonical non-self Host.id values returned by list_hosts, not host name/display name.
pipelineNoProject pipeline config. Key fields: `variables` are pipeline-wide defaults (strings). `environments` is a map of env name -> { variables } that OVERRIDE defaults per environment (precedence: project < pipeline < pipeline.pipeline < environments[env] < run vars); the same pipeline serves multiple environments by overriding only the differing variables. `sync_mode` declares how build artifacts reach targets: "transfer" (agent uploads the packaged artifact) or "remote_cmd" (the target host runs a command such as git pull to fetch code itself); empty defaults to transfer. `roles` maps a role/run-group name to a host list (run groups); a role entry uses {from_service} to derive hosts from a service's deployment for the running env, or {hosts:[...]} for an explicit set. Only plugins that need to target a specific group (e.g. nginx upstream) reference roles; most deploy steps follow the env deployment targets automatically. Any host_ids, roles hosts, or task host_id values must use canonical non-self Host.id values returned by list_hosts, not host names.
root_pathNo
project_idNo
project_nameNo
approval_tokenNo
debug_session_idNo
Behavior2/5

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

The description mentions 'safe-operation flow', implying a gated or non-direct execution, but does not disclose what side effects occur, whether approval is required, or if changes are reversible. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to give meaningful behavioral transparency.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity sacrifices critical content, so it is concise but under-specified.

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 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is grossly incomplete. It lacks information about return values, workflow steps, prerequisites, and the safe-operation mechanism.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 22%, and the description itself adds no parameter-level context. It does not compensate for undocumented parameters like project_id, root_path, or approval_token, leaving the agent without guidance beyond the bare schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a verb and resource ('Apply a config upsert') but leaves 'config' ambiguous and doesn't distinguish from sibling upsert tools like upsert_project_config or upsert_project_pipeline. The 'safe-operation flow' phrase hints at a distinct mechanism but is undefined.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus preview_config_change, direct upsert tools, or validation tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Xsxdot/super-dev'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server