Authenticated async Opus 4.8 Agent agent with status polling and artifact results.
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool targets a distinct concern: identity metadata, run creation, status polling, result retrieval, and cancellation. There is no overlap or ambiguity about which tool to call for a given step.
All tools share the agentfarm_ prefix and use a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_run, get_run_status, get_run_result, cancel_run, agent_info). The naming is predictable and uniform.
Five tools form a tight, purposeful surface for managing asynchronous agent farm runs. The set is neither bloated nor too thin for its stated purpose.
The server covers the essential async run lifecycle: create, poll status, retrieve results, and cancel. A list-runs or historical deletion endpoint is missing, but core workflows do not dead-end.
Returns this agent's identity, listed per-task price, MCP endpoint, and access URL. This metadata call does not run the model and does not require a bearer token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying no model execution and no token requirement. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with return values, no unnecessary words.
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?
All relevant information provided: return fields, non-execution nature, authentication requirement. Adequate for a zero-parameter metadata 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?
No parameters, baseline score 4. Description doesn't need to elaborate on parameter meaning.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Returns' and lists concrete resources (identity, per-task price, MCP endpoint, access URL). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are about run creation and status.
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?
Explicitly states 'does not run the model' and 'does not require a bearer token', guiding when to call it. Could be improved by mentioning alternatives, but given context it's clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Cancels an authenticated queued or running run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | AgentFarm run identifier. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a meaningful constraint—only queued or running runs can be cancelled—but does not disclose what happens after cancellation (e.g., irreversible, async, effect on results). This adds some value but not rich behavioral context.
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 single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It conveys the action, resource, and constraint efficiently.
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?
For a one-parameter, destructive, idempotent tool, the schema and annotations cover most of what an agent needs. The main gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not mention what the tool returns after a successful cancel or how errors (e.g., run already finished) are surfaced, which would be useful but not critical.
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?
The input schema covers the sole parameter run_id with 100% description accuracy ('AgentFarm run identifier'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Cancels'), a resource ('AgentFarm run'), and a scope qualifier ('authenticated queued or running'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_run, get_run_status, and get_run_result, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does.
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?
The description implies this tool is only for queued or running runs, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Context about siblings is present in the signal data but not referenced in the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Queues an authenticated asynchronous task. This can consume paid model capacity. Poll with agentfarm_get_run_status, then read agentfarm_get_run_result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | Task for the agent to complete. | |
| task_input | No | Optional JSON-compatible context or input data for the task. | |
| idempotency_key | No | Optional retry key; the same key and input return the original run. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the task is asynchronous, requires authentication, and 'can consume paid model capacity.' This is important cost and execution semantics that an agent needs before invoking the tool. Nothing contradicts the annotations, and the description meaningfully supplements the all-false hint set.
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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds the cost warning and the follow-up workflow. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For an asynchronous create-type tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it and proceed correctly: it is async, costs money, and the result is obtained through explicit sibling tools. A small gap is that it does not describe what create_run returns, such as a run ID needed for polling, but the workflow implication is strong enough to keep this near-complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents task, task_input, and idempotency_key. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, but it also does not need to because the schema carries that load. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: 'Queues an authenticated asynchronous task.' This clearly identifies the action as creating/queueing a run and distinguishes it from the sibling tools that retrieve status, retrieve results, cancel, or return agent info. The follow-up references to get_run_status and get_run_result further reinforce what create_run is not.
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?
The description gives clear workflow context: after creating a run, the agent should poll with agentfarm_get_run_status and then read the result with agentfarm_get_run_result. This effectively tells the agent when this tool fits in the overall lifecycle. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when to prefer alternatives like agentfarm_cancel_run, but the intended usage is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns the final summary and artifact download URLs for an authenticated run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | AgentFarm run identifier. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'authenticated' prerequisite and specifies that it returns final summary and artifact URLs, which gives useful context about what the tool does beyond the annotations.
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 single concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately states the output.
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?
For a simple get-style tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description adequately covers the return content. It does not explain error handling or prerequisites beyond 'authenticated', but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the absent output schema.
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?
The schema already describes run_id as 'AgentFarm run identifier' with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter details, so it meets the baseline but does not 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 ('Returns') and names the resource ('final summary and artifact download URLs') for an authenticated run. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like agentfarm_get_run_status by focusing on the final result rather than status.
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?
The phrase 'for an authenticated run' provides clear context that this tool is used after a run has been executed and requires authentication. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the distinction from sibling tools is implicit through the 'final' wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns queued, running, succeeded, or failed status for an authenticated run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | AgentFarm run identifier. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'authenticated run' requirement, which is not in the annotations, and lists the specific status values returned, providing meaningful context beyond structured metadata.
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 single concise sentence that front-loads the key information (what it returns) and specifies the exact statuses. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
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?
For a simple read-only status-checking tool with one parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: it clarifies the run status values and the authentication requirement. Nothing critical is missing.
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?
The schema covers the single parameter run_id with a clear description ('AgentFarm run identifier'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, so it does not exceed the baseline set by the schema.
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 clearly states the verb ('Returns') and the resource ('status for an authenticated run'), enumerating the possible values (queued, running, succeeded, failed). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agentfarm_get_run_result (which likely retrieves run data) and agentfarm_create_run (which creates runs).
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?
The description implies usage for checking run status, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_run_result or get_run_info. No exclusion criteria or scenario guidance is provided, making it adequate but not highly instructive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
agentfarm_cancel_runagentfarm_create_run1 field changedInput schema / properties / idempotency_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional retry key; the same key and input return the original run.",
+ "maxLength": 128,
+ "type": "string"
+}agentfarm_agent_infoagentfarm_create_runagentfarm_get_run_resultagentfarm_get_run_statusAuthenticated async Fable 5 Agent agent with status polling and artifact results.
Authenticated async Sonnet 5 Agent agent with status polling and artifact results.
Authenticated async GPT-5.6-luna Agent agent with status polling and artifact results.
Authenticated async GPT-5.6-sol Agent agent with status polling and artifact results.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.