Create a multi-agent team. Agents work together in parallel, sequential (chain), or conditional (router) mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Team name | |
| agents | Yes | Team members | |
| description | No | Team description | |
| execution_mode | No | How agents collaborate. Default: sequential |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context about collaboration modes (parallel, sequential, conditional) beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or return behavior, which are important for a creation tool.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and includes relevant detail about execution modes without any fluff. It earns its place perfectly.
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?
The tool has no output schema, and the description fails to mention what the tool returns or how the created team can be referenced later. For a creation tool with moderate complexity and minimal annotations, this leaves significant gaps for an agent attempting to use the tool beyond just the initial create call.
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 the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning for parameters, only mentioning the execution modes which are already enumerated in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 it creates a multi-agent team, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_agent and create_pipeline by focusing on multi-agent collaboration and execution modes.
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 implies usage for creating a team of agents, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The mention of execution modes gives some context for customization, but no direct comparison to sibling tools.
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.
