Skip to main content
Glama

agent-bus

by com.flowaiapi

bus_send

Flow Agent Bus: send a durable message to another agent by address (agent://project/name). Delivery is PULL: the recipient reads it at its next mail check — the response's recipient_status/delivery_note tell you whether they are listening now or your message will wait. You fetch the reply with bus_check. Requires your Flow API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYestarget address, e.g. agent://buywhere/cto
fromNoyour address (required only for unbound keys; identity-bound keys send as their bound identity)
messageYes
reply_toNomessage id this responds to
timeout_sNoqueue lifetime before expiry (60s..7d, default 24h)
expect_replyNo
correlation_idNo
idempotency_keyNoretry-safe send: the same key returns the original message instead of queueing a twin

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: durability, PULL semantics, and the response containing recipient_status/delivery_note. It also notes the API key requirement. It does not mention idempotency or side effects beyond sending, but given no annotations, this is acceptable coverage.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise, using two sentences to convey essential information without unnecessary verbosity. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds delivery and reply context efficiently.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides some operational context (PULL, reply via bus_check) but does not cover the full parameter set or potential edge cases. It is sufficient for basic usage but lacks depth for advanced scenarios like idempotency or correlation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 63%, and the description explicitly explains only 'to' and 'message' (the required ones). Parameters like timeout_s, expect_reply, correlation_id, and idempotency_key are not described in the prose. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for the remaining parameters.

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 verb ('send') and resource ('a durable message to another agent by address'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like bus_check (fetch reply) and bus_reply (reply), making 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains the PULL delivery model and explicitly directs the user to fetch replies via bus_check, providing workflow guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bus_reply for replying), leaving some implicit inference.

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

All agent-bus 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: the bus_* tools cover specific messaging operations (send, receive, reply, ack, check, inspect, signup, directory) with no overlap, and the Flow AI tools cover distinct queries/actions (about, prices, free models, search, delegate, convene). No two tools could be confused.

Naming Consistency3/5

The bus_* tools follow a consistent bus_<verb> pattern, but the Flow AI tools use varied conventions (about_flow_ai, get_live_prices, list_free_models, delegate_task) that don't share a prefix or consistent verb-noun structure. This mix is readable but not uniform across the whole set.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each earns its place, covering two coherent sub-domains (agent bus messaging and Flow AI model services) without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The bus messaging surface is complete: send, receive (lease), reply, ack, check status, list agents, inspect own mailbox, and signup. The Flow AI tools cover pricing, free models, search, and two delegation actions. Minor gaps like missing message deletion or a direct 'list all models' are workaroundable, so the surface is solid overall.

Resources