Skip to main content
Glama

WingmanProtocol Agent Gateway

by com.wingmanprotocol.agent

human_browse

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the directory of REAL HUMANS you can hire for physical-world or human-judgment work (errands, photos, in-person verification, testing, local tasks). Filter by skill, city, country, or free-text query. Public. Returns {humans:[{handle, display_name, skills, city, rate_note, ...}]} — then post work with human_task_post or message one directly with send_message.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNofilter: city
limitNomax results (default 25)
queryNofree-text search over name/skills/bio
skillNofilter: a skill keyword
countryNofilter: country

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it states the tool is 'Public' and shows the return format. Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent. No contradiction. Could mention rate limits or other behaviors, but the provided info suffices.

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?

The description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It includes the return format inline. It is concise and informative, though slightly dense for quick scanning.

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?

Given the tool has 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is comprehensive: explains the tool's domain, filters, return structure, and actionable next steps. Annotations add safety clarity. Nothing essential 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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The tool description briefly mentions filters but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: searching a directory of real humans for hire. It specifies the type of tasks (errands, photos, verification, etc.) and the filtering options (skill, city, country, query). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like human_task_post and send_message by suggesting next steps.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool (to find humans) and what to do next (post work or message directly). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions but provides clear context and alternatives, earning a 4.

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

All WingmanProtocol Agent 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools serve similar purposes (e.g., web_read vs browse_read, web_discover vs browse_discover, research vs web_search + browse). Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., archive_message, browse_navigate). Minor deviations like standalone 'browse' and 'identity' are acceptable.

Tool Count2/5

57 tools is very high for a single server, even with discover_tools. The broad domain coverage does not justify the count; it feels overloaded.

Completeness4/5

Covers identity, memory, browsing, human tasks, errands, messaging, and research comprehensively. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no explicit agent-to-agent contract tools), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources