Create an app from the agents Blueprint with pattern configuration. Sets up rooms and topics designed for agent communication patterns (task queues, results, coordination).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | App name | |
| description | No | App description |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It states creation behavior and setup of rooms/topics, but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., existence of Blueprint), side effects, idempotency, or permissions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. Every word contributes to explaining purpose and setup.
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?
Tool has moderate complexity (sets up rooms/topics) but no output schema. Description explains the concept but lacks details on pattern configuration specifics or post-conditions; still sufficient for basic understanding but not full contextual 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 already covers both name and description with brief descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics beyond the overall app context, so 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?
Description uses specific verb 'Create' + resource 'app' + qualifier 'from the agents Blueprint with pattern configuration', clearly distinguishing it from generic nolag_create_app. It also describes what is set up (rooms/topics) for agent communication.
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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. Context implies it's for apps needing agent communication patterns, but does not contrast with nolag_create_app or other siblings. This is an implied usage but not 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 follow a clear resource-action pattern, but create_actor, create_agent, and create_orchestrator could be confused, as agents and orchestrators are specialized actors. Similarly, publish and dispatch_task both send messages to topics, though descriptions clarify. Overall, boundaries are mostly distinct.
All tools use the nolag_ prefix with consistent verb_noun snake_case naming. Verbs include create, delete, get, list, update, set, retry, dispatch, publish, generate, and configure. No mixed conventions are present.
At 35 tools, this server exceeds the recommended range for a typical MCP server. While each tool serves a purpose, many CRUD operations could be consolidated (e.g., create_actor, create_agent, and create_orchestrator could be one tool with a type parameter). The count feels heavy.
The toolset covers core lifecycle operations for apps, actors, rooms, scopes, and webhooks, plus messaging, task dispatch, blackboard state, and agent event streaming. Minor gaps exist (no explicit agent-specific update, no webhook delete), but agents can work around these with general actor/app operations.
