Skip to main content
Glama
seedfast-ai

Seedfast MCP Server

Official
by seedfast-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

seedfast_run

Start an asynchronous seeding run against a PostgreSQL database, returning a runId for tracking progress and logs. Use after plan approval or for direct execution.

Instructions

Kicks off an asynchronous seeding run against the target database. Returns immediately with a text block containing the new runId, initial status (pending), the plan ID if supplied, and the effective scope; the seeding itself runs in the background — poll seedfast_run_status or subscribe to the seedfast://runs/{runId}/summary and seedfast://runs/{runId}/log resources for progress. If planId is provided, the scope is auto-generated from that plan's tables and the scope argument is ignored; otherwise scope is required. If idempotencyKey matches a prior run, that existing run is returned instead of starting a new one. Use this once the user has approved a plan (or wants direct execution). Requires SEEDFAST_API_KEY configured in MCP env. For production-safe workflows, request the seed-production-db prompt first. Next: seedfast_run_status to poll, or seedfast_run_cancel to abort.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dsnYesPostgreSQL connection string for the target database.
scopeNoPlain-text scope description. Required unless planId is provided; ignored when planId is set (scope is derived from the plan's tables).
planIdNoID of a plan previously produced by seedfast_plan or seedfast_plan_create. When set, the run seeds exactly those tables and the scope argument is overridden.
idempotencyKeyNoCaller-chosen key for safe retries. If a prior run was started with the same key, that run is returned and no new run is created.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.6.4

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers. It discloses asynchronous execution, immediate return contents (runId, pending status, plan ID, effective scope), background running, progress via polling/subscriptions, idempotencyKey behavior, and the required SEEDFAST_API_KEY. This is far beyond the schema and gives an agent a clear mental model.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: primary action, return behavior, monitoring, plan/scope rules, idempotency, usage timing, API key requirement, and next-step routing. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and stays focused despite covering a complex operation.

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 an async, mutating run tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers the DSN requirement, plan/scope interaction, idempotency, what is returned, how to monitor, how to cancel, and the API key prerequisite. Minor gaps like error handling or explicit destructive-effect disclosure exist, but not enough to seriously impair an agent.

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%, and the input schema already explains the planId/scope relationship and idempotency behavior. The description reiterates these same caveats but doesn't add deeper meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 nails the core action: 'Kicks off an asynchronous seeding run against the target database.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like seedfast_run_status (polling), seedfast_run_cancel (aborting), and seedfast_plan (plan creation), so an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is present: 'Use this once the user has approved a plan (or wants direct execution).' It also directs the agent to the next steps—poll seedfast_run_status or cancel with seedfast_run_cancel—and mentions the production-safe prompt for safe workflows.

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