swarme_vault_fillFill a bounded template using Vault data. Requires an owner-issued temporary grant and returns only sanitized document, billing, and one-use artifact-delivery metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quote_id | No | ||
| vault_grant | Yes | ||
| output_format | No | ||
| template_body | Yes | ||
| template_title | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does add behavioral details: a temporary grant is required, and the output is limited to sanitized document, billing, and one-use artifact-delivery metadata. However, it does not disclose side effects, persistence, or what 'bounded' means operationally.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the key requirement and output limitation. Everything present earns its place.
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?
Although an output schema exists and covers return values, the tool has 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations. The description fails to explain most parameters, lacks routing guidance versus siblings, and leaves important context (e.g., what 'bounded' means, how to obtain the grant, idempotency behavior) unaddressed.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at two parameters: vault_grant ('owner-issued temporary grant') and template_body ('bounded template'). The remaining parameters (quote_id, output_format, template_title, idempotency_key) receive no explanation, leaving a significant gap for invocation.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Fill a bounded template using Vault data') and names the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from closely named siblings like swarme_vault_fill_quote, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description provides a prerequisite (owner-issued temporary grant) and a restriction on the return payload, which gives useful context. But it never says when to choose this tool over alternatives like swarme_vault_fill_quote or swarme_vault_documents, leaving usage largely implied.
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.