Skip to main content
Glama

cloud_push_release

Push a locally signed release to a configured remote for sharing or deployment. Requires Kiln Pro.

Instructions

Push a locally-signed release to the remote.

Needs Kiln Pro.

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": {
      "release_id": "<release_id>"
    },
    "name": "cloud_push_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
remoteNoRemote alias, as registered with ``cloud_remote_add`` (default: ``"default"``). Default: "default".
release_idYesThe id of the locally signed design release to push.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only but non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of behavioral context annotations cannot convey: the source must be locally signed, and the operation is gated behind Kiln Pro. It stops short of saying whether an existing remote release is overwritten or rejected.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the single blocking prerequisite. No filler, and the tier gate is separated so it reads as a condition rather than part of the action.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter push with a fully described schema and no output schema, this covers purpose, source precondition, and access requirement. The remaining gap is outcome behavior on the remote (overwrite vs. conflict) and whether auth/remote registration must precede the call.

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 both 'remote' (default "default", tied to cloud_remote_add) and 'release_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and object ('Push a locally-signed release') plus a destination ('to the remote'), which separates it from branch/feature/preset pushes in the sibling set. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the distinction relies on the agent noticing 'release' in the name.

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?

'Needs Kiln Pro' is a real prerequisite, and 'locally-signed' implies a prior signing step (sign_design_release). However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. cloud_push_branch / cloud_push_feature_release guidance and no note on what to do when the remote already has a diverging release.

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