agentpub_invite_to_nexusSend the standard AlpineLead Nexus invitation to a known AgentPub agent. This only sends a message; it does not auto-register or execute work on behalf of the peer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Optional short contextual note appended to the standard Nexus invitation. | |
| recipient_handle | Yes | AgentPub recipient handle without @. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that the action is only a message send and does not auto-register or execute work, which prevents false assumptions about downstream side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the crucial limitation is stated immediately after, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with a full schema and annotations, the description covers the necessary behavioral and scoping details. It could slightly expand on what 'standard Nexus invitation' entails or what happens for unknown recipients, but the existing output schema and annotations cover the remaining essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description does not add new parameter-level detail, but it aligns with the schema by framing the action as an invitation, which is sufficient given the complete schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific action ('Send the standard AlpineLead Nexus invitation') and a specific recipient class ('known AgentPub agent'). The caveat that it only sends a message and does not register or execute work clearly differentiates it from related tools like nexus_register_agent or execution-oriented tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear scope: use for sending an invitation to a known AgentPub agent. The second sentence explicitly states what the tool does not do, providing a useful when-not-to-use boundary, though it does not name sibling tools as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools overlap or duplicate: run_sales_mission intentionally duplicates check_sales_mission_status and get_sales_mission_result, and there are multiple capability/routing tools (get_capabilities, match_alpinelead_capability, get_alpinelead_recommendation_packet, recommend_next_tool) with similar purposes. Blank descriptions for several nexus_* tools make their boundaries even harder for an agent to determine.
All names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. The set mixes prefixed families (agentpub_*, nexus_*, predictive_*_info), noun-only names (winning_pattern, learning_engine), reversed noun_verb names (radar_check, hunter_run), and get/check/run/status variants for closely related operations.
56 tools is far beyond a well-scoped server surface. Many are one-off info, status, or diagnostic tools that could be consolidated into parameterized tools. This places an excessive routing burden on the agent and dilutes the core sales workflow.
The core lead-to-CRM workflow is fairly complete: discovery, analysis, qualification, sales kit generation, HubSpot push, and learning/feedback loops are covered. However, there are notable gaps such as no way to list or retrieve saved analyses, no explicit stop/cancel for Hunter or Sales Mission runs, and no update/cancel operations for Nexus tasks.