mzizi-mcp

fundi

mzizi_fundi

Destructive

Delegate a task to the fundi agent, or check on one. Submit-and-poll: submit returns a task id immediately and never waits for the run. Needs sign-in: fundi runs as your Mzizi console user.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "mzizi_fundi"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`skill`	No	Required for submit.
`action`	Yes
`taskId`	No	Required for task_status and cancel.
`instruction`	No	What fundi should do. Required for submit.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 1, 2026
- changedInput schema / $schema
```
Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / instruction / maxLength
```
Added value: +20000
```
- addedInput schema / properties / taskId / maxLength
```
Added value: +200
```
First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare openWorld, non-idempotent, and destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the operation is asynchronous polling, submit never blocks on the run, and authentication is required because fundi runs as the caller's Mzizi console user. It does not explain the effects of cancel or why the tool is marked destructive, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, all earning their place: purpose and alternatives first, then the polling behavior, then the auth prerequisite. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

For a destructive, open-world, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, auth and async polling are covered well. But the description omits what task_status returns, what cancel does to an in-flight run, and why the destructive hint applies, leaving real gaps for a mutation 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 75% and the enum parameters (action, skill) are self-documenting, so the schema carries most of the load and baseline 3 applies. The description contributes only the submit-returns-id behavior; it adds nothing about task_status or cancel semantics beyond 'check on one'.

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 description gives a specific verb and resource ('Delegate a task to the fundi agent, or check on one') and names the submit/poll pattern, so the agent knows this is an async job-delegation tool rather than a doc lookup. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling (e.g., mzizi_get_skills or mzizi_report_issue), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Submit-and-poll' plus 'submit returns a task id immediately and never waits' gives real context for how to use the submit action, and 'check on one' implies the task_status path. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of when cancel is appropriate, and no routing away from similar siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All mzizi-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?