Tango

Call an external tool via the executor

call_executor

Forward a tool call to the organization's configured executor.sh MCP gateway (or any MCP-compatible gateway). Use this to let Tango reach tools hosted outside Tango, such as GitHub, Slack, or custom sandbox functions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`method`	No	Protocol shape: 'tools/call' (MCP Streamable HTTP, default) or 'invoke' (simple {tool, arguments}).
`arguments`	No	Arguments object to pass to the tool.
`tool_name`	Yes	Name of the tool on the external gateway.
`timeout_seconds`	No	Max wait time, default 25s.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only mark the call as read-only=false and not destructive, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the tool is a passthrough to an external gateway, but does not disclose that the invoked external tool may have arbitrary side effects, nor does it describe response/error behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then give concrete examples. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

For a generic passthrough tool, the description is understandable and all parameters are documented, but there is no mention of what the call returns or how errors surface. Given there is no output schema, a brief note on the response shape would make this more complete.

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 100%, so the description does not need to re-explain parameters. It adds no extra semantics beyond schema, which matches the baseline for full coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Forward') and identifies the resource ('executor.sh MCP gateway' / any MCP-compatible gateway). It also clarifies scope by stating it reaches tools hosted outside Tango, differentiating it from sibling tools like call_integration.

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 explicit use context: 'Use this to let Tango reach tools hosted outside Tango, such as GitHub, Slack, or custom sandbox functions.' It does not list exclusions or when to prefer alternatives, but the intended scenario is clear.

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

All Tango tools Inspect

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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, but several adjacent pairs are easy to confuse: add_comment vs add_progress_note, call_executor vs call_integration, log_client_decision vs update_client_context vs memory_save, and list_context_sources vs list_integrations. The descriptions do disambiguate them, but the boundaries are subtle enough that misselection is likely with 81 tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_task, update_project, list_integrations, set_webhook), and get_/ list_/ create_/ update_ families are predictable. Minor deviations exist: memory_read/memory_save/memory_search invert to object_verb, and bare nouns like whoami, glossary, and security_posture break the pattern, but there is no chaotic casing or mixed conventions.

Tool Count2/5

At 81 tools, this is far above the weight that is comfortable for an agent's tool-selection surface, especially since many tools belong to families that could be consolidated (webhooks, worker keys, project logs, context/memory). Although the domain is broad, the count will overwhelm agents and increase misrouting.

Completeness4/5

The surface is unusually comprehensive: tasks, projects, workers, leases, artifacts, comments, handoffs, webhooks, keys, context, memory, integrations, and support all have create/read/update/delete or equivalent lifecycle coverage. The gaps are minor, such as remove_dependency without a visible add_dependency and no artifact/comment deletion, but agents can work around them.

Resources

Need Help?