mcp-agent-hub

team_status

View all agents, their current task loads, and hub statistics to monitor team activity and coordinate work across masters, subagents, and peers.

Instructions

查看全体 Agent（多个主理人 + 全部子代理/peer）及其当前任务负载，以及 Hub 统计。适合主理人总览，也适合任何 Agent 看队伍在干什么。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "team_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavior burden. "查看" implies a read-only query, and it discloses the returned scope (agents, task load, hub stats). It does not state permissions or visibility constraints, but for a zero-parameter read tool the gap is modest.

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?

Two efficient sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second states the audience. No wasted text, though it could be tighter by naming the sibling it replaces.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. For a zero-parameter aggregate tool, the description covers scope and audience adequately. The only minor gap is not clarifying how it relates to sibling overview tools.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly conveys that it is a no-argument call.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: viewing all agents (masters + sub-agents/peers), their task load, plus hub statistics. This clearly identifies it as an aggregate overview tool. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_agents or hub_stats, which cover subsets of the same data.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"适合主理人总览，也适合任何 Agent 看队伍在干什么" indicates context (master overview or any agent checking team activity). But it gives no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives such as list_agents for a bare roster or hub_stats for statistics only.

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