Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bamboo MCP Server

Bamboo MCP Server

by mvadly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

set_plan_variable

Set or update a plan variable in Bamboo CI/CD to dynamically configure builds without modifying plan definitions.

Instructions

Create or update a plan variable.

Args: plan_key: The plan key (e.g., 'PROJ-PLAN') variable_name: Variable name variable_value: Variable value

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": {
      "plan_key": "<plan_key>",
      "variable_name": "<variable_name>",
      "variable_value": "<variable_value>"
    },
    "name": "set_plan_variable"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
plan_keyYes
variable_nameYes
variable_valueYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Create or update' but lacks details on idempotency, permissions, side effects, or return format. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. It lists arguments concisely without extraneous text. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate purpose from parameters).

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple tool with 3 required string params and no enums/nested objects, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not describe the output schema or mention idempotency, which would be helpful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains plan_key with an example ('PROJ-PLAN') but variable_name and variable_value have only their names. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Create or update a plan variable,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. The sibling list includes get_plan_variables, so this tool is clearly the write counterpart, distinguishing it from read-only operations.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The purpose is implied but there is no mention of prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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