Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ateam-mcp

ateam-mcp

by ariekogan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

ateam_get_examples

Get validated examples of skills, connectors, and solutions to study before building your own.

Instructions

Get complete working examples that pass validation. Study these before building your own.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "ateam_get_examples"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesExample type: 'skill' = Order Support Agent, 'connector' = stdio MCP connector, 'connector-ui' = UI-capable connector, 'solution' = full 3-skill e-commerce solution, 'script-cache-skill' = fat-tool skill with script_cache opt-in (reference implementation of script-level JIT shortcuts — study this before building any browser-automation skill), 'index' = list all available examples

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.52

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only retrieval operation ('get'), but provides no details about side effects, authentication needs, or return behavior. This is adequate for a simple fetch but lacks extra context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action. The second sentence adds usage hint but is not strictly necessary. Still efficient and clear.

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 has no output schema, so the description should disclose the return format (e.g., file paths, content). It does not, leaving uncertainty for the agent about how to use retrieved examples.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with enum descriptions for each type, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states 'Get complete working examples that pass validation' with a clear verb and resource. Combined with the enum parameter specifying example types, the tool's purpose is unambiguous and distinct from all 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 phrase 'Study these before building your own' implies a learning usage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools