Skip to main content
Glama

nucleus

by io.github.eidetic-works

Slots & Sprints

nucleus_slots

Orchestration slots, sprints & mission management.

Actions: orchestrate - THE GOD COMMAND. params: {slot_id?, model?, alias?, mode?} slot_complete - Mark task complete. params: {slot_id, task_id, outcome?, notes?} slot_exhaust - Mark slot exhausted. params: {slot_id, reset_hours?} status_dashboard - ASCII dashboard. params: {detail_level?} autopilot_sprint - Sprint command. params: {slots?, mode?, halt_on_blocker?, halt_on_tier_mismatch?, max_tasks_per_slot?, budget_limit?, dry_run?} force_assign - Force assign task. params: {slot_id, task_id, acknowledge_risk?} autopilot_sprint_v2 - Enhanced sprint V3.1. params: {slots?, mode?, halt_on_blocker?, halt_on_tier_mismatch?, max_tasks_per_slot?, budget_limit?, time_limit_hours?, dry_run?} start_mission - Start mission. params: {name, goal, task_ids, slot_ids?, budget_limit?, time_limit_hours?, success_criteria?} mission_status - Get mission status. params: {mission_id?} halt_sprint - Halt sprint. params: {reason?} resume_sprint - Resume sprint. params: {sprint_id?}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYes
paramsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description lists both read-only (status_dashboard, mission_status) and mutating actions (orchestrate, slot_complete, etc.), providing basic behavioral insight beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false). However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or destructive potential explicitly.

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 a compact list that packs many actions into a small space, but the format is dense and lacks explicit grouping or headers. It is somewhat efficient but could benefit from clearer structuring.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple actions, many parameters) and the generic input schema, the description covers actions and their params but omits usage context, error conditions, and output details. The presence of an output schema partially compensates.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It lists parameter names and types for each action (e.g., 'params: {slot_id?, model?}'), but lacks explanations of what each parameter does or valid values, leaving ambiguity.

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 title 'Slots & Sprints' and description 'Orchestration slots, sprints & mission management' clearly convey the tool's domain. The action list further specifies available operations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like nucleus_orchestration or nucleus_plan_execute.

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 alternatives such as nucleus_orchestration or nucleus_plan_execute. The description merely lists actions without any context about selection criteria or prerequisites.

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