Orchestrate a multi-expert workflow covering PM, architecture, coding, QA, and security to analyze a project and produce consolidated recommendations.
Run the connected PM, architecture, programming, QA and security workflow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | ||
| provider | No | ||
| project_path | No | . |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavioral traits, but 'Run ... workflow' only suggests broad orchestration. It does not state whether the tool mutates files, invokes sub-agents, requires permissions, or returns any result.
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 a single sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but the wording is efficient and readable.
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?
For a tool that orchestrates a multi-role workflow, this definition is far too thin. With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter explanations, an agent lacks essential context about task format, project scope, provider behavior, and expected outcomes.
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 needed to explain what 'task', 'provider', and 'project_path' mean. It mentions none of these parameters, leaving the agent without any semantic grounding for the required input.
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?
States a clear action ('Run') on a defined resource: the connected PM, architecture, programming, QA, and security workflow. It is not a tautology and gives an agent a reasonable idea of what the tool orchestrates, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling expert tools.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus list_experts or ask_expert. The description mentions no prerequisites, exclusions, or decision criteria, so an agent cannot determine when run_team is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.