Skip to main content
Glama
tbranzov

HAOps MCP Server

by tbranzov

haops_bulk_publish_skills

Atomically publish multiple skills in a single transaction with optional cascade re-wiring of all consumers. If any skill fails validation, the entire batch rolls back.

Instructions

Atomically publish multiple skills in a single DB transaction (POST /api/skills/bulk-publish). All version bumps happen in one round-trip; when cascade=true, consumer re-wiring (role templates, skill packs, project protocols) runs ONCE at the end — significantly cheaper than N sequential haops_update_skill calls during mass refactors.

Partial-failure semantics: if ANY entry fails validation (unknown skill name, bad scope+projectSlug combo, duplicate entry), the server rolls back the ENTIRE transaction and returns a 400 with a per-entry error list. No skills are published unless ALL entries are valid. Check totalFailed in the response — 0 means full success.

Admin-only, requires ENABLE_COMPOSED_PROTOCOLS=true. Returns 404 when the feature flag is off (the route looks absent by design).

WARNING: cascade=true re-wires ALL consumers of EVERY updated skill in one transaction. Use haops_preview_skill_cascade on high-impact skills before running to estimate blast radius.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cascadeNoWhen true, atomically re-wires ALL consumers of the updated skills (role templates containing them in defaultSkills, skill packs containing their IDs, project protocols with them in enabledSkillIds) to the NEW UUIDs, all in the same transaction. Recommended for mass refactors. Default: false.
entriesYesList of skills to publish. Each entry must have name + scope. Only supply the fields you want to change; unchanged fields carry forward (no-op entries return the current row without bumping version).
verboseNoIf true, include full skill JSON for each entry in the result output. Default: false.
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses partial-failure semantics, full transaction rollback on any validation error, admin-only restriction, feature flag requirement (`ENABLE_COMPOSED_PROTOCOLS=true`), and a warning about cascade rewiring. It also mentions checking `totalFailed` in the response.

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 well-structured with clear sections: main functionality, partial-failure details, admin/feature flag requirements, and a warning. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description includes enough context: success/failure indicators, prerequisites (admin, feature flag), side effects of cascade, and recommended preview step. For a complex bulk atomic operation, this is remarkably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that entries can be partial updates ('Only supply the fields you want to change'), explaining the conditional requirement for `projectSlug`, and default behavior for cascade and verbose. This goes 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 begins with 'Atomically publish multiple skills in a single DB transaction' which is a specific verb+resource. It explicitly distinguishes the tool from the sibling `haops_update_skill` by highlighting batch efficiency ('significantly cheaper than N sequential haops_update_skill calls during mass refactors').

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?

The description explicitly states the use case: 'mass refactors' and recommends running `haops_preview_skill_cascade` on high-impact skills before to estimate blast radius. It implicitly contrasts with individual updates by naming `haops_update_skill` as the alternative for single updates.

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/tbranzov/haops-mcp-server'

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