Git commit·diff digest·test 결과를 task에 결속한다. 서버는 저장소 credential을 받지 않는다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| branch | No | ||
| api_key | Yes | ||
| task_id | No | ||
| commit_sha | Yes | ||
| repository | Yes | ||
| diff_sha256 | No | ||
| test_command | No | ||
| artifact_refs | No | ||
| test_exit_code | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description only adds a security note that the server does not receive credentials. It does not disclose side effects, mutability, idempotency, or any other behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at two sentences with no redundant text. However, for a tool with multiple parameters and no schema descriptions, it may be too terse and could benefit from additional structure or detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient to guide an AI on proper usage. Missing information such as parameter descriptions, return values, and use cases makes it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 9 parameters. Terms like 'commit_sha', 'diff_sha256', and 'test_command' are left undefined, forcing the agent to guess their meaning and formatting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool binds git commit, diff digest, and test results to a task. It gives a specific verb ('binding') and resource ('task'), and distinguishes itself from related siblings like baton_diff and baton_git_evidence by focusing on recording combined data to a task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over siblings like baton_git_evidence or baton_diff, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes due to detailed descriptions, but some potential overlaps exist (e.g., baton_revoke, baton_close_room, baton_leave). The complex domain is well-differentiated overall.
The baton_ and spider_ prefixes provide consistency, but within baton_ there is a mix of verb-only, noun, and verb_noun patterns (e.g., baton_approve vs baton_account). Not fully predictable.
With 45 tools, the server is very large and may overwhelm agents. While the domain is complex, many tools could potentially be consolidated, making the count excessive.
The tool surface covers account, room, handoff, verification, cost, memory, hub, task, and spider domains thoroughly. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool to list rooms), but core workflows are well-supported.