Staticbot MCP server

skip_migration_job

Destructive

Skip a blocking migration job to mark it SKIPPED and let dependent jobs proceed. When a skipGuard is present, obtain user approval and retry with acknowledged=true.

Instructions

Skip a migration job that is blocking progress. The job will be marked as SKIPPED and dependent jobs will proceed. Use this when a job is non-critical (e.g. an edge function that can be deployed manually later) or when retry won't help. FIRST check the job's skipGuard from get_migration_jobs. When it is non-null, skipping breaks the rest of the migration — present skipGuard.consequence and skipGuard.alternative to the user verbatim, get explicit approval, then call again with acknowledged=true. The jobs that deploy the Staticbot export function to the source project (MANUAL_SYNC_LOVABLE, MANUAL_SYNC_BASE44, LOVABLE_MCP_SYNC, AUTO_DEPLOY_EXPORT_FUNCTION) are the main case: that function is the only way to read the customer's data, so skipping it makes the data import fail with "function not found". The API re-checks whether the function is live and returns 400 if it is not. Never set acknowledged just to clear that 400.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobId`	Yes	Migration job ID (from get_migration_jobs)
`acknowledged`	No	Required for jobs with a non-null skipGuard. Only set true after the user has been shown the consequence and has explicitly agreed.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Parsed JSON response from the Staticbot public API

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.8.1Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations mark this as destructive, and the description goes far beyond that: the job is marked SKIPPED, dependent jobs proceed, and skipping certain Staticbot export function jobs breaks the migration and causes a 400 error. It even specifies the exact failure mode ('function not found') and the API's re-check behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Although long, every sentence carries operational weight: the core action is front-loaded, followed by usage conditions, a safety workflow, a concrete example, API behavior, and a final warning. The structure is logical and dense without being redundant.

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?

The description covers prerequisites (check skipGuard), side effects, failure modes (400), user-consent requirements, and a specific high-risk case. With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. This is complete for a destructive operation with safety implications.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, particularly for 'acknowledged': it must only be true after explicit user approval, and it should never be set solely to clear a 400. It also confirms jobId comes from get_migration_jobs, reinforcing the schema's guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Skip a migration job that is blocking progress.' It states the effect ('marked as SKIPPED and dependent jobs will proceed') and distinguishes itself from retry by specifying when to use it ('or when retry won't help'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like retry_migration_job.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when a job is non-critical ... or when retry won't help') and provides a step-by-step workflow: check skipGuard, present consequence and alternative verbatim, get explicit approval, then call with acknowledged=true. It also warns against setting acknowledged just to clear a 400 error, which is a concrete usage boundary.

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

Deploy Server