Skip to main content
Glama

omniseek_gather

Run multiple read-only tools in parallel and collect results in one response, simplifying multi-source queries.

Instructions

Run N independent read-only eye tools IN PARALLEL, returning results in one response.

Fully-qualified MCP name: mcp__omniseek__omniseek_gather (server name is omniseek; there is no omniseek-eye server).

The agent decides WHAT to call (judgment). OmniSeek executes them (mechanical). Each call runs independently; one failure does not affect others. Calls that depend on a prior call's result belong in a SEPARATE gather (the agent reads this batch first, then decides the next batch).

calls: [{"tool": "omniseek_search", "args": {"query": "..."}}, ...] Bounded: max 10 calls. Read-only tools only. Calls naming search-index venues / nowcoder serialize through one paced backend (see server instructions (10)); >2 per gather adds a warnings entry.

wait_s: the patience budget. gather returns when all calls finish OR wait_s elapses, whichever comes first; calls still running are reported with status "warming" (their background threads keep going and warm the cache — pick them up later with staleness="cache_only" or a second gather).

Returns: {results: [{index, tool, status, result|error|hint}, ...], elapsed_s, completed, warming, failed, total} On an errored call whose failure is a call-signature mismatch (a wrong / missing argument), hint names the tool's REAL parameters (e.g. "omniseek_read takes: target, start_char, max_chars, ...").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
callsYes
wait_sNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: independent execution, partial failure isolation, the wait_s timeout semantics, the "warming" status with background cache-warming behavior, and the hint mechanism for signature mismatches. It even discloses the serialization behavior for certain venues.

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?

The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the dense follow-up sections (fully-qualified name, calls format, wait_s, return envelope) all earn their place given zero schema coverage and no output schema. Minor redundancy — "read-only" appears twice — and the fully-qualified-name preamble is slightly meta, so it doesn't quite earn a 5.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (parallel execution, partial failures, timeout races, cache warming) and the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, this description is remarkably complete. It documents both parameters, the full return envelope ({results, elapsed_s, completed, warming, failed, total}), error-hint behavior, and safety constraints.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does fully. The ``calls`` parameter is given an exact shape ([{"tool": "omniseek_search", "args": {"query": "..."}}, ...]) plus constraints (max 10, read-only only), and ``wait_s`` is defined as a patience budget with precise return semantics. This adds far more than the bare schema's "array of objects with additionalProperties."

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?

"Run N independent read-only eye tools IN PARALLEL, returning results in one response" names a specific verb, resource, and execution mode. It distinguishes the tool from its single-purpose siblings (omniseek_search, omniseek_read, etc.) by positioning it as the parallel dispatcher rather than an individual eye tool.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when/when-not guidance: "Calls that depend on a prior call's result belong in a SEPARATE gather," "Read-only tools only," and the max-10 bound. It also clarifies the division of labor ("The agent decides WHAT to call... OmniSeek executes them") and warns about the paced-backend serialization quirk for >2 calls.

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