Skip to main content
Glama

ComOS Federation Gateway

by com.comos-federation

introspection_system_list_nodes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Enumerate every artifact, tool, and tenant the federation knows about, with the activation state needed to render picker UIs. Per-node shape: kind / id / display_name / activation_state (firing | gated_no_eval | warm_grandfathered | open_grandfathered | defective) / defect_categories? / last_touched_at. Optional repo scopes the artifact list to one repo (Phase A). Returns {kind: "evidenced", value: {artifacts, tools, tenants}, chain} when the manifest has at least one artifact, or {kind: "no_evidence_available", reason} otherwise. Added by change-order 2026-05-27-010 (Phase 2) to strip free-text-input affordances from the workflow surfaces. Returns: The set of structure-graph nodes. Example: call introspection_system_list_nodes with arguments {}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNo

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive; description adds valuable detail on output shape, activation states, and no-evidence fallback. No contradictions.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Generally well-organized but contains redundant elements ('Returns: The set of structure-graph nodes' repeats earlier content) and a historical reference (change-order) that adds no operational value.

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?

Covers all aspects for a read-only enumeration: purpose, output shape, success/failure cases, and optional parameter. Slight ambiguity with 'Phase A' but overall 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?

Only parameter 'repo' is described with semantic meaning ('scopes the artifact list to one repo'), compensating for 0% schema coverage. Adds functional context beyond the bare string type.

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?

Explicit verb 'enumerate' with specific resources (artifacts, tools, tenants) and clear purpose (render picker UIs). Distinguishes from sibling tools like introspection_system_list_repos by scope and output.

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?

Clearly implies usage for picker UI rendering and explains optional repo scoping. Missing explicit exclusions or alternative tool comparisons, but context is sufficient for typical use.

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 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

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