Skip to main content
Glama

DreamAgent

by io.github.nivethaug

dreamagent_chat

WRITE ACTION — builds, modifies, or fixes an EXISTING project with a natural-language instruction. Use ONLY when the user clearly asks for a change ("add X", "fix Y", "change the theme"). If the user is only asking for advice, analysis, review, or suggestions ("what could be improved?", "review my bot"), do NOT call this — answer from the project's info instead; a review request is not an edit.

Describe ONLY the desired change — DreamAgent's AI automatically handles code, tests, rebuild, and redeployment. Completed changes are saved and committed automatically.

ASYNCHRONOUS: returns immediately with the session_key; monitor with dreamagent_get_edit_progress (or dreamagent_get_chat_status with the returned session key) until a terminal state. Report success only after run_status reaches 'completed'. Edits consume the user's AI credits.

ERRORS (actual returns): failures come back as text starting with 'ERROR:'. If the edit was rejected before starting, the text says 'the edit was NOT started' plus the reason — HTTP 402 insufficient credits, 409 another edit already active, 423 session lock held by another session, 404 wrong project id, 401 no account connected. Treat the edit as failed/cancelled only when a status tool says so.

ONE EDIT AT A TIME: never start another modification on the same project while one is running — check progress first and wait.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesthe desired change (what + any behavioral constraints).
project_idYesthe project to modify.
new_sessionNooptional — start a fresh session for a new topic.
session_keyNooptional — continue a specific development session.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses asynchronous behavior, immediate return with session_key, need to monitor until terminal state, AI credit consumption, error format with specific HTTP codes, and one-edit-at-a-time rule. Adds substantial context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well-structured with clear paragraphs for purpose, usage, async behavior, errors, and concurrency. Each section earns its place given the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing value.

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 complex asynchronous tool with multiple error codes and concurrency constraints, the description fully covers operational nuances, monitoring requirements, and failure interpretation. No gaps identified.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level guidance about message content ('Describe ONLY the desired change') but does not significantly expand parameter-level semantics.

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 it is a WRITE ACTION that builds, modifies, or fixes an EXISTING project via natural-language instruction. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly excluding advice/review requests and directing to status tools for monitoring.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use criteria ('only when the user clearly asks for a change') and when-not-to-use ('advice, analysis, review... do NOT call this'), and names alternative tools (dreamagent_get_edit_progress, dreamagent_get_chat_status). Concurrency guidance is also given.

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

All DreamAgent 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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: project creation, listing, status checks, edit progress, session management, and integration queries. The status tools (get_chat_status, get_edit_progress, get_project_status) are carefully differentiated by their input and purpose, so there is no real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern of 'dreamagent_' plus a verb_noun structure (e.g., create_project, list_sessions, get_edit_progress). This makes the entire set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

With 12 tools, the set is well-scoped for managing DreamAgent projects and edits. Each tool covers a necessary operation without redundancy or bloat, staying comfortably within the ideal range.

Completeness4/5

The tool set comprehensively covers project creation, listing, status monitoring, AI editing, session management, and integration inspection. The notable gap is the lack of an update or delete project operation, but the core lifecycle and editing workflows are well covered.

Resources