Renor

Ask another agent

ask_agent

Records a request for another agent in this workspace. It does not run a tool, write a memory, or wake that agent. They see it at the start of their next task, in whats_new, and they answer only if their own rules say to. to must be the name on a connection key that has connected to this workspace; unnamed cannot be asked. One connection can record 30 requests an hour by default; past that it is refused with the time it can ask again.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	The agent the request is for, the name on their connection key.
`scope`	No	"global" (default) or project:<slug>, e.g. project:atlas.
`request`	Yes	What you are asking, in plain words.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`to_agent`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`from_agent`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 29, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "created_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "from_agent": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "enum": [
+        "open",
+        "answered",
+        "closed"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "to_agent": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "status",
+    "from_agent",
+    "to_agent",
+    "created_at"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond annotations: reveals that delivery is asynchronous and passive (surfaces in whats_new at the start of the recipient's next task), that the recipient may never answer, and that there is a per-connection default rate limit of 30 requests/hour with refusal carrying a retry time. These are exactly the operational facts an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the negative clarification, then constraints. Each sentence carries information, though the delivery sentence ("They see it at the start of their next task, in whats_new, and they answer only if...") packs three ideas into one clause chain.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation here. Combined with the delivery mechanics, recipient eligibility rule, rate limit, and refusal behavior, an agent has everything needed to decide to call and to interpret failure correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds a real validity constraint on `to` (the name on a connection key that has connected to this workspace) beyond the schema's looser wording. `scope` and `request` are left to the schema, which documents them adequately.

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?

"Records a request for another agent in this workspace" gives a specific verb and resource, and immediately negates the three most likely misreadings (does not run a tool, write a memory, or wake the agent). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like answer_request, list_requests, and remember.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states the precondition for use (the recipient must be the name on a connection key; unnamed cannot be asked) and when the recipient will actually see the request. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to sibling tools such as list_requests or answer_request, but the conditions for correct use are clear.

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

All Renor tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.