Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Hyperagent MCP

Hyperagent MCP

by PandaNePanda
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Chat through Hyperagent

hyperagent_chat

Send prompts to Fable 5 or GPT-5.6 Sol through Hyperagent. Create new threads or continue existing conversations with an optional system prompt and timeout.

Instructions

Sends a prompt to Fable 5 or GPT-5.6 Sol through Hyperagent. Omit thread_id to create a thread; reuse the returned thread_id to continue it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "model": "<model>",
      "prompt": "<prompt>"
    },
    "name": "hyperagent_chat"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelYesModel alias
promptYesPrompt to send
thread_idNoExisting Hyperagent thread ID for continuation
system_promptNoSystem prompt for a new thread, or an explicit update to an existing thread
timeout_secondsNoRequest timeout; default 600 seconds

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions thread creation and continuation but lacks details on authentication, side effects, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond the obvious send operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The verb 'sends' and models are front-loaded, immediately conveying the core action.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers core usage (send, create/continue thread) but does not explain parameters like system_prompt or timeout_seconds, nor does it mention return values. Given no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the thread_id creation/continuation pattern, which goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool sends a prompt and specifies models (Fable 5, GPT-5.6 Sol). It differentiates between creating a new thread and continuing an existing one, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool hyperagent_models.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit guidance: omit thread_id to create a thread, reuse it to continue. This tells the agent when to use different parameter combinations, though it does not list exclusions or when not to use the tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools