Skip to main content
Glama

nucleus

by io.github.eidetic-works

Next Message

nucleus_next_message

Get the next unread relay message. One call — returns full message body and auto-acks. Long-poll (60s timeout).

This is the agent's idle loop. Call it, get a message or None, act or re-call. No separate inbox + ack dance.

The agent's loop:

  1. nucleus_next_message() → blocks up to 60s for a message

  2. If message: handle it (execute task, respond to comment, etc.)

  3. Re-call nucleus_next_message() — always re-arm, never sit idle

  4. Never stop the loop

Role is auto-detected from posture (.brain/posture/current.json). No args needed.

Returns: dict with: message: full relay message (id, from, subject, body, priority, task_id) or None acked: True if message was auto-acked waited_seconds: how long the poll ran

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
recipientNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide minimal behavior info, but the description fully discloses long-poll (60s timeout), auto-acking, and the return structure. It explains that calling the tool blocks up to 60s and auto-acks the message, which is critical behavior 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?

The description is well-structured: a brief definition, behavioral details, the loop pattern, and return format. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Despite the missing parameter description, the tool is simple and the description covers its core purpose, behavior, usage loop, and return schema. The output schema exists and complements the description. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the description fails to explain the 'recipient' parameter. While it states 'No args needed', it provides no insight into what the parameter does, leaving the agent to guess its purpose.

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 'Get the next unread relay message' and places it as the agent's idle loop, distinguishing it from siblings like nucleus_relay and nucleus_relay_subscribe by its unique polling + auto-ack pattern.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly describes the calling pattern with a loop: call, handle message or None, re-call. Advises to always re-arm and never sit idle. Mentions that no separate inbox/ack dance is needed and role is auto-detected.

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