Skip to main content
Glama

Heista

by co.heista

Dispatch (async) — desk-researcher

dispatch_desk_researcher_async
Idempotent

Dispatch to the DESK RESEARCHER — source-grounded synthesis on a topic landscape. Use for: "what is known about X / give me the landscape of Y / fact-check Z / synthesize the published evidence on W". Multi-source FACT/INFERENCE extraction with citation discipline. Vertical and geography agnostic. Returns: BRIEF restatement + NOT IN SCOPE + findings with FACT/INFERENCE/SPECULATION labels + [n] citations + Sources block. NOT for: trajectory questions (use dispatch_trend_researcher) / entity teardowns (use dispatch_market_analyst) / numerical effect sizes (use dispatch_quantitative_researcher) / community quotes (use dispatch_qualitative_researcher). ASYNC version: returns { job_id } immediately, the specialist runs durably on a Vercel Workflow (no 300s timeout). Use this version when the specialist is expected to take >90s. Call get_dispatch_result(job_id) periodically (respect wait_ms_hint in the response) until status === 'completed' or 'failed'. Idempotent: same brief + same org reuses the same job_id, so retries don't fan out duplicate runs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
priorityNostandard (default) uses the specialist's production model; deep uses its escalation model.
objectiveYesOne sentence stating what "done" looks like — the specific deliverable. From the four-part delegation contract (agent-authoring §5).
boundariesYesIn scope vs out of scope. Explicit OUT_OF_SCOPE clauses. Constraints (e.g. "do not spawn further subagents", "only Meta paid social").
output_formatYesThe shape the specialist must return — schema, template, or specific format. If verbatim-return needed, say so explicitly.
tool_guidanceYesHow the specialist should approach this — which tools to favor, effort budget in tool calls, query angles to prioritize.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the tool returns a job_id immediately, runs durably on Vercel Workflow without a 300s timeout, and is idempotent. There is no contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose, then usage guidance, then async specifics and idempotency. It is slightly long but every sentence earns its place. Minor loss for density but still efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of an async dispatch tool with many siblings and parameters, the description is complete. It explains the async pattern, polling instructions, idempotency, and outlines the return structure (BRIEF restatement, NOT IN SCOPE, findings with labels, citations, Sources). Output schema is not provided, so the description compensates effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds some context about how parameters relate to the overall goal but does not significantly enhance the meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as dispatching to the DESK RESEARCHER for source-grounded synthesis on a topic landscape, with specific use cases. It distinguishes from siblings by listing what it is NOT for, such as trajectory questions or entity teardowns, and clearly identifies it as the async version.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including alternatives for other dispatch tools. It explains the async behavior (use when >90s), how to poll results via get_dispatch_result, and mentions idempotency to avoid duplicate runs. This gives clear context for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Heista toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Despite the high tool count, most tools have distinct purposes with thorough descriptions that specify when to use each. Some overlap exists among creative direction tools (call_creative_worlds vs chat_with_creative_worlds), but the descriptions clarify usage patterns.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent overall: some follow verb_noun (create_powersource_url, decode_ad), others use noun_verb or compound names (adformula_intelligence, fleet_analytics_overview). However, subgroups like dispatch_* and list_*_presets maintain internal consistency.

Tool Count2/5

112 tools is far beyond the typical 3-15 range for well-scoped servers. While the server covers a broad domain, the sheer number likely overwhelms agents and suggests insufficient consolidation of related operations.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core creative intelligence workflows: brand analysis, ad decoding, script generation, creative direction, and research. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no social media publishing tools), but the main use cases are well-supported.

Resources