Skip to main content
Glama

aribot

by io.github.aristiun

onboard_agents

Bulk-onboard agent identities to the governed fleet (Agent Governance). Accepts plain ids or {agent_id} descriptors in agents, A2A 1.0 Agent Cards in agent_cards (name/url/provider/version/protocolVersion), or MCP client descriptors, under an optional cohort + shared auto-suspend policy. Idempotent. Requires the agent_governance licence + a manage:agents grant (or a first-party super-admin). Agents also self-onboard on first token/call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentsNoAgent ids or descriptors ({agent_id, display?, cohort?})
cohortNoOptional shared cohort (provider/model/deployment group)
agent_cardsNoA2A 1.0 Agent Cards ({name, url, provider, version, protocolVersion, ...})
auto_suspend_thresholdNoOptional 0..1 auto-suspend deviation threshold for the cohort policy

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description covers idempotence, license/grant requirements, and self-onboarding behavior, but omits details on error handling or rate limits.

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 information-dense and front-loaded, though the first sentence is long; it efficiently conveys all key aspects without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not specify return values or error outcomes, which are relevant for an agent understanding the full effect of the tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema descriptions cover all 4 parameters at 100%; the description adds context about A2A cards, MCP descriptors, and auto-suspend policy, exceeding baseline.

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 verb 'bulk-onboard' and the resource 'agent identities to the governed fleet', which is distinct from sibling tools focused on scanning, compliance, and remediation.

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 explains the tool is for bulk onboarding and mentions self-onboarding as an alternative, but does not explicitly state when to avoid using the tool or compare directly to siblings.

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

All aribot 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., apply vs. get remediation, scan vs. status). A few pairs like get_insights and get_diagram_summary overlap slightly in metrics but descriptions clarify differences. No major ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Predominantly verb_noun pattern (apply_, get_, generate_). However, code_review_scan and compliance_scan are noun phrases without a leading verb, and compliance_status is noun_noun, introducing minor inconsistency.

Tool Count4/5

15 tools is at the upper end of typical but still reasonable for a security platform covering scanning, remediation, threat modeling, billing, and reporting. Each tool serves a clear function; no obvious bloat.

Completeness4/5

Covers core workflows: code/cloud/compliance scanning, threat modeling, remediation (dry-run and apply), traceability, insights. Minor gaps like missing scan listing or account management, but these align with the platform's assessment focus.

Resources