Create a multi-step pipeline on an agent. Steps chain agents sequentially with configurable input mapping.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Pipeline name | |
| steps | Yes | Pipeline steps | |
| agent_id | Yes | The parent agent ID | |
| description | No | Pipeline description |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, indicating a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the behavioral model of sequential step chaining and configurable input mapping, but does not mention other traits like permissions, side effects, or response behavior. With annotations covering safety, the added context is moderate but not extensive.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. Every clause adds value: 'multi-step pipeline' conveys scope, 'on an agent' the target, and the second sentence explains step chaining and input mapping. It is an exemplary model of conciseness.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage and annotations, the description covers the essential purpose. It does not explicitly mention that creating a pipeline does not execute it, nor what is returned, but these are inferable from the verb 'create' and the sibling run tool. The tool's complexity (multi-step, input mapping) is adequately introduced, though a bit more context on return or execution would improve completeness.
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 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description's phrase 'configurable input mapping' highlights the input_mapping parameter, but this is already in the schema. It adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the verb 'Create' with resource 'multi-step pipeline on an agent', which is specific and distinguishes from siblings like kopern_run_pipeline (execute) and kopern_create_agent (create a single agent). It further explains 'Steps chain agents sequentially with configurable input mapping', clearly scoping the tool's functionality.
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?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for creating pipelines, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The distinction from kopern_run_pipeline is implied by the verb 'create' and the sibling name, but not stated explicitly. The context is unambiguous enough to justify a 4 rather than a 3.
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 clearly distinct purposes (create vs list vs get vs run vs connect). A few potential overlaps exist (deploy_template vs create_agent, import_agent vs create_agent, grade_prompt vs run_grading) but descriptions clarify the differences.
All tools share the 'kopern_' prefix and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (create_*, get_*, list_*, run_*, connect_*). The exception is 'kopern_compliance_report', which uses a noun phrase without a verb, breaking the otherwise consistent naming.
With 31 tools, this exceeds the 25-tool threshold for well-scoped servers. While the domain is broad (agent lifecycle, grading, pipelines, teams, connectors), the sheer number of tools feels heavy and could be consolidated (e.g., a single 'manage_memory' tool already bundles multiple actions).
Core agent management (create, read, update, delete, list) is solid, and grading has suite creation, execution, and results. However, pipelines and teams lack get/update/delete operations, connectors only support connect (no disconnect), and there's no way to manage grading suites beyond creation and running. This leaves notable gaps for secondary resources.
