Skip to main content
Glama

Upsert project pipeline

upsert_project_pipeline

Create or update a project-level pipeline with environment-specific variables, sync mode, and role-targeted hosts using the local agent.

Instructions

Create or edit one project-level pipeline through the local agent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
pipelineYesProject 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies mutation via 'Create or edit' but does not explain upsert semantics (e.g., whether it overwrites existing configurations), required permissions, idempotency, or return values. The schema descriptions cover parameter configuration but not tool execution behavior.

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 sentence with no redundant content, making it concise and front-loaded. However, the phrase 'through the local agent' is vague and does not add substantial clarity for a complex tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not explain effects on the system, return values, or relevant context such as how this fits into the pipeline lifecycle.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'service' and 'pipeline' have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter information, leaving most parameters unexplained. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, which the rubric requires for descriptions when coverage is below 50%.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create or edit') and the resource ('one project-level pipeline'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_project_pipeline and validate_project_pipeline. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_project_pipeline or deploy_project_pipeline. It only states what the tool does without explaining selection criteria or exclusions.

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