Skip to main content
Glama

thruact_act

Run a capability. Routes across providers and fails over automatically on provider faults. The reply's route says which providers were considered, what each scored, and why any were not used — including ones dropped for a missing credential.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hedgeNoRace a backup provider if the first is slower than usual. Cuts tail latency; you are charged for one answer.
inputNo
preferNoWhat to optimise for among the providers that fit the ceiling.
capabilityYes
max_cost_usdNoCeiling for this call. Narrows which providers may be used rather than refusing outright; if nothing fits, the error names the cheapest price that would.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses routing, failover behavior, and the route field's content (scoring, rejection reasons, missing credentials). It lacks detail on side effects, cost guarantees beyond max_cost_usd, or response structure, but the disclosed behavior is substantive.

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?

Three sentences deliver purpose, routing/failover behavior, and route semantics with zero filler. Key behavioral details are front-loaded.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the route field but omits the input/capability format, hedge semantics, and what output besides route is returned. An agent cannot reliably construct a valid call without additional inference.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 60% (only prefer and max_cost_usd have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-level details for capability, input, or hedge. The core capability argument is undefined, and input is an undocumented nested object, requiring the agent to guess their structure.

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?

'Run a capability' is a specific verb+resource and the routing/failover behavior distinguishes it from siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify how it differs from thruact_call.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use when a capability needs execution with failover, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention related tools like thruact_compare or thruact_proxy.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct task: capability-level execution, tool-id execution, multi-provider comparison, discovery, reliability stats, vendor API proxying, and billing. The potential overlaps (act vs call vs compare) are clearly separated by failover, fixed-tool vs multi-provider behavior.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names share a clean thruact_ prefix and lowercase single-word convention, which is easy to predict. The suffix is not strictly verb_noun because iq, proxy, and walet are noun-ish while act, call, compare, and discover are verbs, so there is a minor stylistic inconsistency.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well within the ideal range and each one has a clear purpose with no redundant duplication. The count matches a gateway-style product that needs discovery, execution modes, comparison, reliability, proxying, and wallet visibility.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the main user-facing workflow: discover capabilities, execute them, compare answers, inspect reliability, proxy to external vendors, and track spending. The only noticeable gap is that there is no explicit directory/list tool for connected vendor ids or all available tool ids, though discover and external workspace setup can partially work around that.

Resources