Skip to main content
Glama
opsmill

infrahub-mcp

Official
by opsmill
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Propose Changes

propose_changes

Open a proposed change from your active Infrahub session branch to the default branch so a human can review, approve, and merge session edits while you keep working.

Instructions

Open a proposed change (pull request) from the active session branch to the default branch.

Creates a CoreProposedChange in Infrahub so a human can review, approve, and merge the changes made during this session. The session branch remains active after calling this — you can continue making changes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesTitle for the proposed change (equivalent to a PR title).
descriptionNoOptional description explaining the motivation for the changes.
destination_branchNoBranch to merge into. Defaults to the instance's default branch (resolved automatically). Override only when merging into a non-default branch.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv1.1.5

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds real value beyond them: it names the created entity (CoreProposedChange), explains that human review/approval/merge is required, and clarifies that the session branch remains active so work can continue. It does not state whether calling twice produces duplicate proposals, which the idempotentHint=false implies.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and branch semantics. The second and third sentences add distinct, non-redundant value (what object is created and that the session branch survives), so nothing is wasted.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the side effect on the session branch, and the human-review workflow. It does not say what the call returns (e.g., an identifier for the new proposed change), which is the one remaining gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 100%, so title, description, and destination_branch are already fully documented in the schema, including the default-branch resolution behavior. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the structured fields provide, so 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?

The description states a precise verb and resource: 'Open a proposed change (pull request) from the active session branch to the default branch.' This is unmistakably different in function from siblings like reset_session_branch or node_upsert. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the operation is unique enough that sibling confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'so a human can review, approve, and merge the changes made during this session' tells the agent this is the wrap-up step for a work session. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., what to do instead of a proposal, or when the session branch should be discarded via reset_session_branch).

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