describe_agent
Return fleet-standard capabilities, actions, invariants, and pricing.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
agent-hive-orchestrator
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, performance implications, or authentication requirements. It only lists return contents, missing transparency.
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?
A single sentence containing all relevant information, front-loaded with the action 'Return' and the specific items. No extra words, perfectly concise.
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?
For a simple no-argument tool with an output schema, the description adequately lists all return categories. The existence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values further.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. With no parameters to document, the description correctly provides all necessary information.
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 returns 'fleet-standard capabilities, actions, invariants, and pricing', specifying the verb 'Return' and the exact resources. It is distinct from sibling tools like audit_job or solve, which focus on different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied as a way to obtain agent configuration info, but no when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: auditing, describing agents, checking job status, listing solvers, solving jobs, and verifying audits. No overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., audit_job, describe_agent). The naming is clear and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is well-scoped for an orchestrator server, covering essential operations without unnecessary bloat or missing core functionality.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers agent description, solver listing, job execution, status checking, auditing, and verification. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to list all jobs, but the core lifecycle is complete.