swarme_tool_runRun or plan a Swarme capability. Browser-first tools return a client execution plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| input | No | ||
| quote_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose one important trait: browser-first tools return a client execution plan rather than a direct result. However, it does not describe side effects, execution mode selection, authentication needs, or what happens for non-browser tools.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Both sentences earn their place, though the brevity leaves material gaps in parameter and usage documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema existing, the tool has no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and minimal behavioral context. For a generic runner with nested input objects and a required slug, this description is not sufficient for an agent to invoke it reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain slug, input, or quote_id. An agent cannot infer what a 'slug' refers to, what shape 'input' should take, or when quote_id is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Identifies a specific verb-resource pair ('Run or plan a Swarme capability') and adds the meaningful distinction that browser-first tools return a client execution plan. It is clearer than a tautology, though the dual 'run or plan' phrasing is slightly ambiguous about how the mode is selected.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools such as swarme_tool_quote, swarme_capability_describe, or swarme_tool_status. The browser-first sentence hints at a behavioral condition, but it does not say when to choose run/plan versus alternatives or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are grouped into distinct resource families (account, AI, capabilities, discover, experiments, tool runs, uploads, vault), so most are easy to tell apart. However, multiple 'status' tools and the two Vault metadata tools (documents and summary) could be confused without reading the descriptions carefully.
All tools share a consistent swarme_ prefix and snake_case style, making them predictable. The pattern is not uniformly verb_noun, and there is a plural mismatch between swarme_capabilities_search and swarme_capability_describe, but the naming is generally coherent.
22 tools is on the heavy side and above the typical 3-15 range for a focused MCP server. While the platform covers many domains and each tool has a role, several status-related tools could have been consolidated.
Core workflows like tool runs, experiments, AI model jobs, and Vault fills are well covered. Notable gaps remain: no cancellation for AI jobs or experiments, no listing endpoints for runs/experiments, no Vault field read/delete, and the upload session has no companion completion/status tool.