Create an orchestrator actor that coordinates work across agents. Orchestrators get persistent sessions and can access multiple apps. The access token is only shown once - save it immediately!
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Orchestrator name (e.g., 'task-dispatcher', 'workflow-manager') | |
| externalId | No | External ID for linking to your system | |
| description | No | Description of what this orchestrator does |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavior—'The access token is only shown once - save it immediately!'—and also notes persistent sessions and multi-app access. This is substantial but doesn't cover all potential side effects or permissions.
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 compact three sentences with no redundant wording. Every sentence adds value, front-loading the core purpose and then adding the crucial token caveat.
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?
Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, key capabilities, and the critical security detail about the one-time token. It could mention prerequisites or returned data beyond the token, but it is reasonably complete for a creation 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?
All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reminding about the token behavior. This meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.
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 a specific verb+resource ('Create an orchestrator actor') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like nolag_create_actor by noting it 'coordinates work across agents' and mentions persistent sessions and multi-app access. This makes its purpose unambiguous.
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?
It provides clear context on when to use this tool: for orchestration requiring persistent sessions and multi-app access. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives such as nolag_create_actor or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.
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.
