Skip to main content
Glama

nucleus

by io.github.eidetic-works

nucleus_lane_start

Start autonomous lane daemons (watcher + executor + secretary) in background. WHEN TO USE: after nucleus_lane_init and SPEC.md is written — this launches the loop that autonomously claims and executes tasks. The executor invokes an LLM CLI (devin/agy) per task; the secretary independently verifies each result. Runs until nucleus_lane_stop is called.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
executorsNoList of executor lane names (default: ["lane_devin"]).
repo_pathNoPath to the git repo (default: current directory).
no_watcherNoSkip control watcher.
no_secretaryNoSkip secretary daemon (NOT recommended — disables verification).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains background daemon behavior, executor invoking LLM CLI, and secretary verification, but omits details like auth requirements, error handling, or whether it modifies state.

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?

Concise and well-structured: front-loaded with action, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so return value detail is unnecessary. Covers purpose, when to use, and high-level behavior. Could mention success indicators (e.g., daemon PIDs) but adequate for a launch tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context about secretary verifying results (relating to no_secretary) but otherwise does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Start autonomous lane daemons (watcher + executor + secretary) in background', specifying the verb, resource, and components. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nucleus_lane_init and nucleus_lane_stop by its launch role.

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?

Includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE: after nucleus_lane_init and SPEC.md is written', providing prerequisite context. Also notes that the tool 'runs until nucleus_lane_stop is called', giving lifecycle guidance. Lacks direct when-not-to-use but overall clear.

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