Skip to main content
Glama

nucleus

by io.github.eidetic-works

CCR Arm

nucleus_ccr_arm

One-shot convenience: resolve canonical inbox + arm long-poll subscription.

Per PR #2 (CCR server-side auto-arm) — IDE-agnostic relay-arrival arming.

This is the RECOMMENDED entry point for SessionStart auto-arming across all MCP clients (Claude Code, Antigravity, Cursor, Windsurf, etc.). Equivalent to: 1. resolve_canonical_inbox_name(role) → canonical inbox name 2. nucleus_relay_subscribe(inbox_filter=, timeout_seconds=...)

Why this exists vs nucleus_relay_subscribe + inbox_filter: nucleus_relay_subscribe + inbox_filter requires the caller to KNOW the canonical inbox name for their role. nucleus_ccr_arm hides that step. Agent just calls nucleus_ccr_arm() with no args; server detects role from CC_SESSION_ROLE / NUCLEUS_SESSION_ROLE env OR detect_session_role().

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNoexplicit role override (e.g., "antigravity", "cc_tb"). If omitted, server detects via env vars / registry ancestry / provider heuristics (per detect_session_role).
timeout_secondsNomax subscription duration (60..1800, default 270 under FastMCP context-cache TTL).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation possible), destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it detects role from env vars or registry, and explains the timeout range and default. It does not discuss multiple-call behavior but adds meaningful context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is front-loaded with a one-line summary, followed by technical context and 'Why this exists' section. Every sentence serves a purpose; no redundancy.

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's complexity (two-step composition), full schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description adequately explains the equivalence to two steps and role detection heuristics.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds: 'explicit role override' and explains timeout as 'max subscription duration (60..1800, default 270 under FastMCP context-cache TTL)', enriching schema fields.

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 does 'resolve canonical inbox + arm long-poll subscription' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool nucleus_relay_subscribe by explaining why this composite operation exists.

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 calls it the 'RECOMMENDED entry point for SessionStart auto-arming' and contrasts with nucleus_relay_subscribe, which requires knowing the canonical inbox. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but provides clear context.

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

All nucleus 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
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by domain with detailed descriptions, but some overlap exists (e.g., multiple relay-related tools like nucleus_relay, nucleus_relay_subscribe, nucleus_next_message). Overall, most tools have distinct purposes, and descriptions help disambiguate.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the 'nucleus_' prefix with a consistent noun-like second part (e.g., nucleus_agents, nucleus_audit, nucleus_delegate). Even compound names like nucleus_lane_feedback maintain the pattern, with no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count3/5

With 28 tools, the count is on the higher end but still justifiable given the broad scope of an agent operating system. The tools cover many necessary functions, though the set could be slightly trimmed for focus.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers most aspects of an agent OS: agents, audit, delegation, memory, features, federation, governance, infra, lanes, messaging, orchestration, plans, relay, routing, sessions, slots, sync, tasks, telemetry. Minor gaps like a dedicated config tool are absent but not critical.

Resources