Execute a multi-agent team on a prompt. Returns each agent's output and the final combined result. Uses YOUR API keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | The task/prompt to send to the team | |
| team_id | Yes | The team ID or name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'Uses YOUR API keys', which is a useful behavioral caveat (cost/security). However, it does not disclose other potential side effects or execution semantics beyond returning outputs, so it provides only partial transparency.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. No redundant wording or filler.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains return values. It mentions API key usage. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., team must be created first), error conditions, and any potential side effects, leaving gaps for a multi-agent execution tool.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described ('prompt' and 'team_id'). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides—it simply mentions a 'prompt' implicitly. 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 clearly states the verb 'Execute' and the resource 'multi-agent team on a prompt'. It also specifies the output: each agent's output and final combined result. This distinguishes it from siblings like kopern_run_pipeline and kopern_run_autoresearch.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kopern_run_pipeline or kopern_create_team. It lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, prerequisites like 'team must exist', or exclusions.
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.
