Execute a named AI agent with input and optional context to delegate specialized tasks such as security scanning and code review.
Execute a single agent.
Args: agent_name: Name of the agent to execute input_content: Input content to process context: Optional context from Claude
Returns: Execution result
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | ||
| agent_name | Yes | ||
| input_content | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether execution is a read-only operation or causes side effects, what the failure modes are, whether it blocks, or how long it can run. 'Returns: Execution result' is a tautology that adds no behavioral detail beyond the tool name.
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 compact and front-loaded: the single-sentence summary comes first, followed by a terse argument list. Its only waste is the 'Returns: Execution result' line, which restates the obvious, but it is short and does not materially reduce clarity.
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?
This is a low-information definition for a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter documentation in the schema. The description never clarifies what 'input content' should be, what a result contains, how errors surface, or how this relates to execute_pipeline. An agent has enough to make a plausible guess but not enough to invoke it confidently.
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 for the three undocumented parameters. It defines each parameter with one line, but 'Name of the agent to execute' 'Input content to process' and 'Optional context from Claude' add almost no meaning beyond the property titles. The description does not specify input format, size limits, or the shape of the expected context.
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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Execute a single agent' — which tells the agent this runs one agent, and the phrase 'single agent' implicitly contrasts with the sibling execute_pipeline. However, 'execute an agent' remains somewhat ambiguous: it never explains what executing an agent entails (running it on a task, invoking a workflow, etc.).
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. Crucially, execute_pipeline is a sibling that appears to be the multi-agent alternative, but the description never mentions it or any condition selecting between them. No prerequisites are given either (e.g., whether the agent must already exist via register_agent).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.