Skip to main content
Glama

ComOS Federation

by io.github.ronrey

federation_enter_tenant

Read-onlyIdempotent

Enter a tenant to receive its tool surface (progressive disclosure). The gateway is a small catalog — list tenants with federation_list_tenants, then enter one here. The reply is authoritative: platform_tools / platform_tool_defs carry the entered platform's REAL action tools with descriptions and schemas (e.g. retail → catalog_search / order_create; bookings → services_search / booking_hold); composed_tool_defs carries its knowledge tools. Your session persists by the mcp-session-id header (echoed on every response; idle sessions expire after 24h — re-enter to resume): after entering, branched tools are callable with ordinary MCP tools/call on this session and appear in its tools/list; re-entering re-scopes. REST twin: POST /tools/ on this host, JSON body = the tool's arguments plus {"tenant_id":""}, with your Authorization header for scoped tools. Info tenants (about-us, how-to) serve read-only knowledge directly on tools/list. Returns: { platform_tools: [...] } — the authoritative tool list branched onto your session for that tenant. Example: call federation_enter_tenant with arguments {"tenant_id":""}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tenant_idYesThe tenant id to enter (e.g. "about-us").

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / tenant_id / maxLength
      Added value: +4000
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: mcp-session-id persistence, 24h idle expiry, re-entering re-scopes, the authoritative progressive tool surface, and how info tenants behave. Annotations already declare safe/idempotent behavior, and this description enriches them without contradiction.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the content is mostly high-value, but it is verbose and repeats 'authoritative' in the return-value summary. Still, the detailed session, REST, and response information earns most of its length.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the reply structure (platform_tools, platform_tool_defs, composed_tool_defs), session lifecycle, tool listing behavior, and REST twin. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already covers tenant_id at 100%, with a description and example placeholder. The tool description adds the JSON call shape and examples of tenant-specific platforms, but does not deeply increase parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Enter a tenant to receive its tool surface (progressive disclosure).' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the prerequisite federation_list_tenants and by explaining that entering scopes the session to the tenant's real action and knowledge tools.

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?

Provides clear context: list tenants first, then enter, re-enter to resume, and shows a REST twin alternative. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, but the workflow and alternatives are clear enough to guide the agent.

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

All ComOS Federation 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by clear domain prefixes (federation_*, introspection_*, moltbook_*) with each targeting a distinct resource+action (bond_post/release/status, key_challenge/bind/status, journal_append/read). The primary near-overlap — catalog_search_multi vs catalog_search_grouped_multi — is explicitly disambiguated in descriptions. Minor confusion risk exists among the four knowledge tools (federation_help, federation_why, about_us_about, how_to_about) but their purposes (how/why/manual/walkthrough) are distinct enough.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant `federation_<verb>_<noun>` pattern (create_tenant, list_agents, bond_release) is strong, but it's mixed with bare-noun tools (federation_arena, federation_offer, federation_solvency, federation_pricesheet, federation_help) and noun-noun variants (federation_manager_tree, federation_tenant_info). Non-federation tools use a loose `<domain>_<verb>` or single-token convention (legal_get, web_research, about_us_about). Readable overall, but conventions are noticeably mixed across the surface.

Tool Count2/5

At 72 tools this crosses the 50+ threshold for an extreme count. While the federation's scope is genuinely broad (manager lifecycle, tenants, catalog, agents, bonds, keys, journal, canon, introspection, social, email, research), the surface is bloated — roughly 15 bare introspection tools (list_nodes, probe, confidence, diff, coverage_gaps, co_decisions, climb_history, change_graph, change_reach, corpus_*) cover meta-self-knowledge that could plausibly collapse into fewer verbs. Agents would face a very large selection space.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is exhaustively complete for the federation domain: applicant and operator sides of admittance, full manager lifecycle (create/list/freeze/attest/bond/key), full tenant lifecycle (create/list/info/update/suspend/delete/enter), catalog discovery with change-detection, pricing, solvency, latency, journaling, governance, legal, and even external outreach (email/moltbook/research). No dead ends exist — every write has a corresponding read/status path, and branched platform tools are intentionally deferred behind enter_tenant rather than omitted.

Resources