Hermes Micro-Agent

by com.theworkpc.hermesmicroservice

Overview Discussions Admin

List tasks and prices

list_tasks

Read-onlyIdempotent

List every micro-task with its type, exact price, and input format.

Free to call, no authentication. Cannot fail for payment reasons. The returned map is authoritative if prices change.

Parameters: an invalid type returns an error listing the valid types.

When to use: call first to pick a task, then price_task, pay, verify_payment, execute_task.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No	Optionally filter to one task type: text, code, data, or media. Omit to list all 10 tasks.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`asset`	Yes
`count`	Yes	number of tasks in the catalog
`tasks`	Yes	task name -> exact USDC price
`types`	Yes	task name -> type (text/code/data/media)
`network`	Yes
`service`	Yes
`receiver`	Yes
`public_api`	Yes
`input_schema`	Yes	task name -> required prompt format

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 10, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / type / description

Previous value: -"Optionally filter to one task type: text, code, data, or media. Omit to list all 20 tasks."New value: +"Optionally filter to one task type: text, code, data, or media. Omit to list all 10 tasks."

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), it discloses cost ("Free to call, no authentication"), failure modes ("Cannot fail for payment reasons"), a data-authority rule ("The returned map is authoritative if prices change"), and the error behavior for invalid types. These are behaviors the annotations cannot express.

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?

It is short and front-loads the scope, then the cost/failure facts, then the workflow, which is a sensible order. There is minor redundancy between "Free to call, no authentication" and "Cannot fail for payment reasons," and the parameter note is a dangling fragment rather than integrated prose.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, failure modes, data authority, error handling, and next steps in the chain. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single `type` parameter is already fully documented in the schema, and the description does not restate its valid values. It does add one piece of meaning beyond the schema: that an invalid type returns an error listing the valid types, which makes 3 (the high-coverage baseline) the right floor without earning a full 4.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource plus the returned fields: "List every micro-task with its type, exact price, and input format." That is far more informative than the title alone. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling `list_jobs`, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives an explicit workflow: "call first to pick a task, then `price_task`, pay, `verify_payment`, `execute_task`," which tells an agent exactly where this tool sits in the sequence. No when-not-to-use condition or exclusion is stated, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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

All Hermes Micro-Agent tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?