peer-agents-mcp

by Rakeen70210

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation3/5
While each tool has a distinct purpose, the descriptions share extensive boilerplate text (e.g., 'Before calling: read relevant source files...'), making it harder for an agent to quickly differentiate between tools like peer_ask, peer_compare, and peer_debate. The specific routing information at the end helps but requires careful reading.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the snakename pattern with the consistent prefix 'peer', using varied but appropriate verbs/verb phrases. No mixing of conventions like camelCase or different prefixes.
Tool Count5/5
13 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a server focused on peer agent interactions. Each tool covers a distinct operation without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a broad range of peer agent workflows: asking, comparing, debating, debugging, planning, reviewing, verifying, and session management. Minor gaps like explicit session creation are implicitly handled via peer_turn, so no critical missing operations.
Average 3.1/5 across 13 of 13 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Destructive operation is implied but no details on irreversibility, auth requirements, or what exactly gets cleared/deleted. No annotations to supplement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Too short and vague to convey essential context. Single sentence fails to explain tool behavior sufficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing output schema, no annotations, 4 parameters mostly undocumented; description incomplete for safe effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 25% (only idempotency_key described). Description adds no parameter meaning; does not compensate for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states it clears or deletes a session, but doesn't specify which condition triggers which action. It distinguishes from siblings as reset/delete operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other peer tools, no context about prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states 'Return' implying read-only, but does not confirm safety, auth needs, or whether the summary is stateful. The term 'rolling' introduces ambiguity about session state management.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, achieving conciseness. However, it is so brief that it underspecifies the tool, sacrificing clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the return format, the nature of the summary, and how unresolved issues are defined. It fails to do so, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'session_id' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain its purpose or format. The description adds no value beyond the parameter name.
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?
The description clearly states the tool returns a rolling session summary and unresolved issues, which is distinct from sibling tools like peer_ask or peer_debate. However, it does not elaborate on what 'rolling' means or the context of sessions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of use cases, prerequisites, or when to avoid it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It tells the agent what to prepare but not what the tool does internally (e.g., how it processes the turn, side effects, response format). The behavioral impact is largely hidden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short but contains extraneous instructions that are more procedural than definitional. The mismatch between 'task' and 'message' wastes some clarity. Overall, it is acceptably concise but could be more focused.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a peer review tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to continue the session, or what agents should expect after calling peer_turn. Key contextual gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by instructing to attach full contents via `files` and never use prose summaries for diffs. However, it incorrectly refers to a 'task' parameter that does not exist in the schema, which detracts from semantic clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description implies the tool is for following up in an existing peer session, but it does not explicitly state that it sends a new turn in a peer review. The phrase 'Set `task` with goals, affected behavior, and specific concerns' conflicts with the schema, which uses 'message' instead of 'task'. This mismatch reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides procedural instructions (read files, attach diffs) but does not explain when to use this tool versus sibling tools like peer_ask or peer_debate. There is no guidance on alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'export', implying a read operation. It does not disclose permission requirements, mutability, or side effects. No information on output format or behavior for edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 4 words, front-loading the core action. However, conciseness sacrifices necessary detail, making it under-specified for reliable use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks information on 'recent' semantics, output structure, pagination, or error handling. Incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; description adds no meaning to parameters beyond their names. The required session_id, optional max_turns, and enum format are not explained. No examples or clarifications provided.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'export' and resource 'transcript turns', indicating functionality. It distinguishes from siblings like peer_list_sessions (list sessions) and peer_summarize (summarize) by focusing on exporting recent turns. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like peer_turn, peer_list_sessions, or peer_summarize. Missing context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the routing behavior to Antigravity and mentions automatic staging of binaries. However, it omits details on mutation, authentication, rate limits, or side effects beyond the routing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences but dense and run-on. It mixes instructions, conditions, and routing info in a stream-like manner. Could be better organized with bullet points or clearer separation of purpose vs. usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and complex routing behavior, the description should explain what the tool returns or the outcome. It lacks any mention of return value, response format, or post-call state, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'Binary attachments are staged to disk...' in the files parameter is already covered by schema). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description focuses on pre-call instructions rather than stating the tool's purpose. It vaguely mentions 'General knowledge or grounded Q&A — routes to Antigravity', but the primary verb and resource are unclear. It does not effectively distinguish from sibling tools like peer_debate or peer_plan.
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?
The description provides explicit before-calling steps (read files, attach content, set task) and mentions routing to Antigravity for certain queries. However, it lacks a clear 'when to use' vs 'when not to use' and does not reference specific sibling tools as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'List' implying read-only. Does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or any side effects, though listing is inherently low-risk.
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?
Single sentence, 10 words, front-loaded with verb and resource. No wasted text; everything earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description omits return format, pagination, or any additional context about sessions. Incomplete for a tool with no other structured context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by stating 'repo_path' is an optional filter, but does not explain what the path refers to (e.g., local filesystem vs. remote repository).
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?
Description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('persisted peer sessions') with a specific optional filter ('by repo path'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like peer_ask or peer_reset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as checking existing sessions before starting a new one or debugging. Missing when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only mentions 'route to best peer model' without explaining routing logic, side effects, output format, or idempotency implications. The idempotency_key parameter suggests retry safety, but the description is silent on this.
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?
The description is three sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the most critical instruction ('Before calling: read...') and provides crisp, actionable guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description covers only diff, files, and task. It omits context for repo_path, focus, risk_level, needs_speed, and idempotency_key, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 reinforces 'files' and 'task' usage (e.g., full contents, specific concerns) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on repo_path, focus, risk_level, or other parameters.
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?
The description clearly states the tool routes a diff review to peer models based on focus and risk. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like peer_debate or peer_compare, leaving ambiguity about when each is appropriate.
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?
The description provides explicit prerequisites (read files, attach full contents, pass diffs, set task) and a 'never prose summaries' rule. It gives clear context for use but lacks exclusion criteria or comparison to the extensive list of peer sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses prerequisites and input requirements but fails to mention side effects, return values, error conditions, or any behavioral impacts beyond 'route verification.' This is insufficient for safe tool invocation.
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 description is concise with four sentences and no wasted words. It is front-loaded with critical instructions, making it efficient for quick reading.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description omits key context: what the tool returns, error handling, idempotency key usage, and prerequisites like repo path accessibility. It feels incomplete for a tool that likely performs significant actions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces proper usage (e.g., 'never prose summaries' for diff) but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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?
The description states 'Route verification of tests/build output,' which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like peer_review_diff or peer_debug, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
The description provides explicit instructions on how to prepare inputs ('read relevant source files and attach full contents via files', 'pass complete diffs/logs — never prose summaries', 'set task with goals'). It implies usage for verification tasks but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the need for independent comparison and idempotency key for retries, but does not describe side effects, output format, or behavior under error conditions.
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 description is concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with 'Before calling:', which is clear. However, it packs multiple instructions into a single paragraph, slightly reducing readability.
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?
Given no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how results are presented. It covers preparation well but lacks information on the tool's output, which is needed for complete understanding.
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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by instructing how to use risk_level (e.g., high for auth, payments) and advising on setting task with specific concerns. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the tool is for independently comparing Plan A vs Plan B, which aligns with the tool name 'peer_debate'. It specifies the input requirements (files, diffs, task) but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like peer_compare.
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?
The description provides prerequisites and instructions for preparing inputs (read files, attach contents, set task with goals). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., peer_compare) and does not mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 discloses only that the tool routes to a peer model, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, return values, or whether state is modified. This is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.
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?
Three sentences, concise and efficient. The first sentence sets a precondition, the second gives guidance, and the third states the purpose. However, the core purpose is last, not front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description is brief and does not explain return values, error handling, or what happens after routing. It lacks completeness for a planning tool that delegates to another model.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds context for `files` (attach full contents, never prose summaries) and `task` (goals, affected behavior), but does not mention other parameters like `repo_path`, `constraints`, `repo_summary`, `risk_level`, `complexity`, or `idempotency_key`. It adds moderate value beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states this tool routes an implementation planning request to the best peer model, using verbs like 'Route' and 'planning request'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on asking, debating, or debugging, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.
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 provides explicit pre-call instructions: read source files, attach full contents via `files`, pass diffs/logs, and set `task` with goals. It also prohibits prose summaries, offering clear guidance on proper usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'dual-CLI comparison' but does not explain the internal behavior, such as whether it modifies state, runs external processes, or returns results. The focus is on input preparation rather than tool effects.
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?
The description is a few short sentences with clear front-loading of critical upfront instructions. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or verbose phrases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks detail on return values, completion behavior, or what happens after invocation. It explains preparation well but omits post-call context, leaving the agent unsure of the tool's overall operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 60%, and the description adds some context, e.g., for 'files' it says 'use correct file extensions...pass base64 or data-URI content.' However, it largely reiterates schema descriptions for parameters like message and repo_path, not adding substantial new meaning.
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?
The description states it is a 'low-level dual-CLI comparison' and instructs to attach files and diffs. It clearly indicates a comparison function, distinguishing it from sibling tools like peer_ask or peer_debate, but does not fully articulate the specific verb-resource relationship.
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 provides explicit instructions: 'Before calling: read relevant source files and attach full contents via files. Pass complete diffs/logs — never prose summaries.' It also advises to 'prefer phase tools for routing,' guiding when not to use this tool. This gives clear usage context and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur (e.g., file stageing), or any required permissions. The only hint is the presence of an idempotency key, but its significance is not explained.
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 description is structured with clear guidance starting with 'Before calling', and each sentence serves a purpose. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise by reducing repetitions (e.g., 'Pass complete diffs/logs' and later 'Full unified diff or patch output'). Overall, it is well-organized and front-loaded.
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?
For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input side well but fails to explain what the tool returns or how to interpret the response. It does not address expected behavior after routing the request (e.g., synchronous vs. asynchronous, result format). This leaves the agent without a complete picture.
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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable emphasis on how parameters should be used (e.g., 'Pass complete diffs/logs — never prose summaries', 'Set task with goals, affected behavior...'), which goes beyond the schema by providing behavioral instructions that improve correct invocation.
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 is for routing a debugging request after failures, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like peer_ask or peer_plan by specifying the context of debugging. The verb 'route' combined with 'debugging request' defines a specific action and resource.
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?
The description explicitly tells the user when to use the tool ('after failures') and provides preparatory instructions ('Before calling: read relevant source files...'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action (check responsiveness) but lacks details on side effects (presumably none), required permissions, or output format. The verb 'check' implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly confirm safety or what happens on failure.
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?
Single sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose. Front-loaded with the key action and target.
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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential behavior. However, it could briefly mention how the result is returned (e.g., boolean status) to avoid ambiguity. Still, the simplicity makes it mostly complete.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters (schema coverage 100% vacuously). Description adds no parameter info because none exist. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to elaborate further.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Check' and the specific resources 'Grok and Antigravity CLIs', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., peer_ask, peer_debate) which involve querying or discussing, while this is a simple health check.
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?
Description implies usage (when you need to check CLI responsiveness) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool. Given the many sibling tools, some contextual tips would help, but the use case is straightforward.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![peer-agents-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Rakeen70210/peer-agents-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Rakeen70210/peer-agents-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![peer-agents-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Rakeen70210/peer-agents-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Rakeen70210/peer-agents-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Rakeen70210/peer-agents-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server