Skip to main content
Glama

overseer.generate_ci

Generate CI/CD pipeline configurations for GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, CircleCI, or Jenkins based on project phase definitions to automate testing and deployment workflows.

Instructions

Generates CI/CD pipeline configuration (GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, etc.) based on phase definitions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_nameYesName of the repository
ci_typeYesType of CI/CD system to generate
optionsNo

Implementation Reference

  • The handleGenerateCi function that executes the tool logic for overseer.generate_ci (currently a stub implementation planned for v1.1).
    export async function handleGenerateCi(
      args: {
        repo_name: string;
        ci_type: 'github-actions' | 'gitlab-ci' | 'circleci' | 'jenkins';
        options?: {
          run_tests?: boolean;
          deploy_on_complete?: boolean;
        };
      },
      phaseManager: PhaseManager
    ): Promise<{
      success: boolean;
      files_created: string[];
      pipeline_config: Record<string, unknown>;
      message?: string;
    }> {
      // Note: generate_ci is a planned feature for v1.1+
      // This tool will generate CI/CD pipeline configurations based on
      // phase definitions and project structure
      
      return {
        success: true,
        files_created: [],
        pipeline_config: {},
        message: `CI/CD generation for ${args.ci_type} is planned for v1.1.0. This tool will create pipeline configurations based on phase definitions and project structure.`,
      };
    }
  • Factory function createGenerateCiTool that defines the tool's name, description, and inputSchema.
    export function createGenerateCiTool(phaseManager: PhaseManager): Tool {
      return {
        name: 'overseer.generate_ci',
        description: 'Generates CI/CD pipeline configuration (GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, etc.) based on phase definitions.',
        inputSchema: {
          type: 'object',
          required: ['repo_name', 'ci_type'],
          properties: {
            repo_name: {
              type: 'string',
              description: 'Name of the repository',
            },
            ci_type: {
              type: 'string',
              enum: ['github-actions', 'gitlab-ci', 'circleci', 'jenkins'],
              description: 'Type of CI/CD system to generate',
            },
            options: {
              type: 'object',
              properties: {
                run_tests: {
                  type: 'boolean',
                  default: true,
                  description: 'Include test steps in pipeline',
                },
                deploy_on_complete: {
                  type: 'boolean',
                  default: false,
                  description: 'Include deployment steps',
                },
              },
            },
          },
        },
      };
    }
  • The createTools function registers the overseer.generate_ci tool by calling createGenerateCiTool and including it in the tools array.
    export function createTools(context: ToolContext): Tool[] {
      return [
        // Planning tools
        createPlanProjectTool(context.phaseManager),
        createInferPhasesTool(context.configLoader),
        createUpdatePhasesTool(context.phaseManager),
        // Execution tools
        createRunPhaseTool(context.phaseManager),
        createAdvancePhaseTool(context.phaseManager),
        createStatusTool(context.phaseManager),
        // QA tools
        createLintRepoTool(context.configLoader),
        createSyncDocsTool(context.phaseManager),
        createCheckComplianceTool(context.phaseManager),
        // Environment tools
        createEnvMapTool(context.phaseManager),
        createGenerateCiTool(context.phaseManager),
        createSecretsTemplateTool(context.phaseManager),
      ];
    }
  • The handleToolCall function dispatches calls to overseer.generate_ci by invoking handleGenerateCi in its switch case.
    export async function handleToolCall(
      name: string,
      args: any,
      context: ToolContext
    ): Promise<any> {
      switch (name) {
        // Planning tools
        case 'overseer.plan_project':
          return await handlePlanProject(args, context.phaseManager);
        case 'overseer.infer_phases':
          return await handleInferPhases(args, context.configLoader);
        case 'overseer.update_phases':
          return await handleUpdatePhases(args, context.phaseManager);
        // Execution tools
        case 'overseer.run_phase':
          return await handleRunPhase(args, context.phaseManager);
        case 'overseer.advance_phase':
          return await handleAdvancePhase(args, context.phaseManager);
        case 'overseer.status':
          return await handleStatus(args, context.phaseManager);
        // QA tools
        case 'overseer.lint_repo':
          return await handleLintRepo(args, context.configLoader);
        case 'overseer.sync_docs':
          return await handleSyncDocs(args, context.phaseManager);
        case 'overseer.check_compliance':
          return await handleCheckCompliance(args, context.phaseManager);
        // Environment tools
        case 'overseer.env_map':
          return await handleEnvMap(args, context.phaseManager);
        case 'overseer.generate_ci':
          return await handleGenerateCi(args, context.phaseManager);
        case 'overseer.secrets_template':
          return await handleSecretsTemplate(args, context.phaseManager);
        default:
          throw new Error(`Unknown tool: ${name}`);
      }
    }
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 states the tool generates configuration but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it modifies files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely writes to repositories.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (generating CI/CD configs with multiple systems and options), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, error handling, and integration with sibling tools, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions), with the 'options' object lacking a top-level description. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining 'phase definitions' or how 'ci_type' interacts with options. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does moderate lifting.

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 ('Generates CI/CD pipeline configuration') and resource ('based on phase definitions'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'overseer.plan_project' or 'overseer.run_phase' that might involve CI/CD aspects, missing full sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing phase definitions from other tools), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'overseer.plan_project' for planning phases, leaving usage context implied at best.

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/freqkflag/PROJECT-OVERSEER-MCP'

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