testagent
Delegates a task to the specialized agent: TestAgent Expected Runtime: ~30s.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Agent Router
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool delegates a task and gives a runtime estimate (~30s), which is some behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention side effects, whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, or what happens to the delegated task, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with only two short sentences and the main purpose front-loaded. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity—it omits essential information about inputs and behavior. While concise, it is not appropriately sized because it lacks critical detail.
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?
Given the open-ended payload schema, the absence of annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what should go into the payload or what the agent does with it. The expected runtime is useful but insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without further assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It doesn't explain the 'payload' parameter at all, which is the only required parameter. Since the payload is an open object with additionalProperties, the description should provide hints on its expected content or format, but it simply says 'delegates a task' without clarifying what should be passed.
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 clearly states the tool delegates a task to TestAgent, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling agents by naming the agent, though it doesn't specify what TestAgent actually does, which slightly limits differentiation. Overall, the purpose is evident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling agent tools. The description only mentions an expected runtime, which is not usage guidance. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or when an alternative agent would be more appropriate.
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
C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Several tools overlap in purpose, particularly the research/analysis agents (constructivecritic, firstprinciplesanalyst, scientificresearchagent, researchagent) and the three reasoningdelegation agents, which differ only by effort level. Some tools like 'exploitagent' and 'testagent' have vague descriptions that don't clarify distinct roles. However, many tools are clearly distinct (e.g., campbuddy vs. smart_fridge___nutrition), and the core router tools (discover_agents, a2a_call_agent, wait_for_task) are well-defined.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use snake_case (a2a_call_agent, discover_agents, wait_for_task) while most others are camelCase or concatenated lowercase (browsernavigationagent, campbuddy, reasoningdelegationhigh). There's also odd naming like 'smart_fridge___nutrition' with triple underscore, and simple names like 'testagent' and 'exploitagent'. No consistent convention exists across the set.
Tool Count4/5
With 24 tools, this is near the upper limit but still reasonable for an agent router that hosts many pre-defined specialized agents. The core router functions (discover, call, wait) are supplemented by a diverse set of agent tools. It's borderline heavy but each tool represents a distinct agent or action, so it's acceptable.
Completeness4/5
The router functionality is well-covered: discovery (discover_agents), synchronous calling (a2a_call_agent), asynchronous handling (wait_for_task), and skill lookup (search_skills/get_skill) for extension. Missing are explicit cancellation or task management tools, but core workflows are supported. The presence of domain-specific agents (campbuddy, silpo_home_restaurant) doesn't detract from router completeness.