ComOS Federation Gateway

federation_catalog_agents

Read-onlyIdempotent

Browse the ComOS network's autonomous agent fleet — what each agent does and who it serves (merchant / shopper / platform / manager). Omit args for the fleet grouped by who-it-serves and by platform; pass serves= or platform= to filter; agent= for one agent's full card. Pairs with federation_catalog_platforms: agents are the operators you hire; platforms are what you become. Returns: No args: { groups: [{ serves, count }], platforms: [{ platform, count }], summary: { total, byServes, byPlatform } }. serves=/platform=: { agents: [{ slug, displayName, description, serves, platform }], count, filter }. agent=: { agent: { slug, displayName, description, serves, platform, repo } }. Example: call federation_catalog_agents with arguments {}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agent`	No	A single agent's full card, by slug (e.g. agent="tax-maintainer").
`serves`	No	Filter by beneficiary — who the agent serves. Omit for the whole fleet.
`platform`	No	Filter to one platform's agents. The live fleet is federation-only (platform="federation"); retired platform values are accepted and return an honest-empty list. Omit for the whole fleet.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) are consistent with the description's implied read-only behavior. The description additionally explains the return structure, which adds transparency beyond the annotations, but does not cover rate limits or auth.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is unnecessarily verbose and repetitive. It states the filtering logic twice (once in the intro and once in the 'Returns' section) and mixes narrative with examples. A more concise version could convey the same information in half the length.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameter usage, return formats, and its relationship to a sibling tool. It does not mention error cases or potential limitations, but for a read-only catalog browse, it is quite complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description explains each parameter's role: 'serves' and 'platform' filter, 'agent' retrieves a full card. It also clarifies the default behavior when args are omitted. While the schema already includes descriptions, the description adds context about grouping and pairing, slightly enhancing understanding.

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: 'Browse the ComOS network's autonomous agent fleet' and what it does (what each agent does and who it serves). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'federation_catalog_platforms' by noting the pair relationship.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit instructions on when to omit args, when to pass 'serves' or 'platform', and when to use 'agent'. It also mentions pairing with federation_catalog_platforms, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over others like search or list tools.

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

All ComOS Federation Gateway tools Inspect

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

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap among introspection tools (introspection_system_probe vs. introspection_system_confidence vs. introspection_system_diff) and between similar reading tools (federation_canon_get vs. federation_tenant_info). Descriptions help clarify but boundaries are not always crisp.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (federation_bond_post, federation_bond_release), some use noun_verb (federation_arena, federation_help), and some use noun_noun (about_us_about, moltbook_read). There are also tools with dot separators (about_us_about) and camelCase (cohort_email_send) mixed with snake_case, making patterns unpredictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 72 tools, the surface is extremely large and likely to overwhelm agents. While the server covers a complex federation platform, this many tools suggest poor scoping or lack of consolidation, making it hard for agents to discover and choose the right tool.

Completeness3/5

The server covers core federation lifecycle (create/list/update/delete tenants, manage managers, bonds, keys) and some platform operations, but there are gaps such as missing tenant deletion workflow details, no explicit tool for updating manager info, and no direct tool for tenant-level settings beyond basic update. The introspection suite is thorough but the domain may not be evenly covered.

Resources

Need Help?