Whisper

agents: resolver

whisper_agents_resolver

The resolver operation on the Whisper control plane, served as CALL whisper.agents({op:'resolver', args:{...}}). Requires your Whisper API key. With no arguments it describes what you already have, so the example below runs as published. Example call: {"skill":"agents.resolver","input":{}} Needs a linked Whisper account (OAuth) or your API key in the X-API-Key header.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "whisper_agents_resolver"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	No	Arguments for this operation. With none, it describes what you already have.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rows`	Yes	The answers, one object per row, keyed by the column names above. An empty array means the question was understood and nothing matched, which is an answer and not a failure.
`columns`	Yes	The column names, in order. Every row object has exactly these keys, so this is the row shape and reading it is cheaper than inspecting a row.
`statistics`	No	What the query cost.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true; the description adds auth requirements (OAuth or X-API-Key) and no-arg behavior. It does not clarify what mutation or resolution occurs when args are supplied, but it avoids contradicting 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

Contains useful invocation and auth details but repeats the API-key requirement and mixes two different call formats ('CALL whisper.agents(...)' vs example {'skill':'agents.resolver'}), making it less front-loaded and efficient than it could be.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the auth/invocation mechanics are covered. However, the description never explains what the resolver actually does or when to use it, leaving a material semantic gap for interacting with this control-plane operation.

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 100% and the single optional input object is already documented; the description's note that an empty call describes existing state is the only added semantic, with no explanation of valid argument fields beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names the operation and call syntax, but 'resolver' is never defined; a reader cannot tell what resource it resolves or how it differs from siblings such as whisper_agents_list or whisper_agents_identity. The no-argument note describes only one mode and does not establish the tool's core purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Provides only a no-argument default ('describes what you already have') and auth requirements; there is no guidance on when to choose resolver over the many sibling agents operations, nor any exclusions.

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

All Whisper 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.