Skip to main content
Glama

aide_upgrade

Compare project AIDE methodology artifacts against canonical versions and apply updates by category. Walk through drifted categories one at a time to update pointer stubs, docs, commands, agents, skills, MCP config, IDE settings, and more.

Instructions

Compare the AIDE methodology artifacts in this project against the canonical versions and return structured JSON results grouped by category. Use this when the user asks to update AIDE, sync AIDE, refresh AIDE, check for AIDE updates, or bring AIDE up to date. This is NOT for editing user .aide specs — it inspects methodology infrastructure only.

The tool uses a two-call pattern for progressive disclosure:

First call (no category param): Returns a lightweight summary — every category with file names, statuses, and counts, but NO file content. Use this to understand what has drifted and present a summary to the user. Ask which categories they want to apply.

Second call (with category param): The tool writes all differs/missing files directly to disk itself and returns a manifest — file results with filePath, status ("updated", "created", or "unchanged"), and name, but NO canonicalContent. The agent never sees file content and never uses the Write tool for methodology files.

Repeat the second call for each category the user confirms.

As the calling agent, you must:

  1. Call without category first to get the summary

  2. Present each drifted category (differs/missing) and ask the user which to apply

  3. For each confirmed category, call again with category=X — the tool writes the files and returns a manifest. Report what was updated/created to the user.

  4. For the mcp category, the manifest still includes prescription data — merge the entry into the existing MCP config yourself (read → merge → write). If malformed, tell the user — do not overwrite.

  5. For ide, the manifest may include instructions for VS Code extension install — execute that command for the user. Zed config is written directly by the tool.

  6. For brain, category=brain never writes; the manifest entry carries an instructions field directing the agent to invoke /aide:brain config, which is the single canonical home for brain.aide creation.

IMPORTANT — one-at-a-time wizard pattern using AskUserQuestion: Do NOT present all categories at once. Walk the user through ONE category at a time using AskUserQuestion with Yes/Skip options. Stop after each question and wait for confirmation before calling with that category.

Categories: pointer-stub, methodology-docs, version-metadata, commands, agents, skills, mcp, ide, readme, brain.

Upgrade surface (user code and user .aide specs are never touched):

  • AIDE pointer stub in the agent config file

  • Canonical methodology docs under .aide/docs/

  • versions.json metadata under .aide/docs/

  • Slash commands for all pipeline phases

  • Pipeline agent files, skill templates

  • MCP server entry in the project's MCP config

  • IDE file association config (Zed settings, VS Code extension)

Supports Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, and Copilot. Auto-detects the framework or accepts an override.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoCustom project root path (defaults to server working directory)
categoryNoWrite all differs/missing files for this category to disk and return a manifest. Omit on the first call to get a metadata-only summary of all categories.
frameworkNoForce a specific framework instead of auto-detecting. Auto-detection checks for framework-specific files/directories and defaults to Claude Code.
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses the two-call progressive disclosure pattern, that the tool writes files on second call, that the agent never sees file content, and detailed per-category behavior (e.g., brain never writes, mcp needs merge, ide may need VS Code command). It also covers auto-detection and framework support.

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 lengthy but well-structured with clear sections (first call, second call, categories, upgrade surface). It front-loads the main purpose and then provides procedural details. While every sentence is useful, it could be slightly shorter without losing clarity. Still, it's appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (two-call pattern, multiple categories, special cases for brain/mcp/ide, framework detection), the description is remarkably complete. It covers usage pattern, constraints (no editing user specs), return format for each call, and agent responsibilities. No output schema, but the description compensates by detailing the manifest structure.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds significant context beyond the schema. It explains the meaning of omitting category (summary mode), how framework override works, and the two-call usage pattern. This justifies a score above baseline 3, though the schema already describes the parameters adequately.

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: comparing AIDE methodology artifacts against canonical versions and returning structured JSON. It specifies what it is NOT for (editing user .aide specs), and outlines the two-call pattern with detailed steps. The verb 'upgrade' and resource 'AIDE methodology artifacts' are well-defined.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use triggers (user asks to update/sync/refresh AIDE) and when-not-to-use (not for editing user specs). It gives a step-by-step wizard pattern with AskUserQuestion, one-at-a-time categories, and special handling for mcp/ide/brain categories. This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like aide_init or aide_scaffold.

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/aidemd-mcp/server'

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