Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
timps-swarm

timps-swarm

by Sandeeprdy1729
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

timps_realtime_agent

Create real-time server and client systems using WebSocket, SSE, Redis Pub-Sub, or Kafka. Describe your task in plain English and choose a language to generate working components.

Instructions

Build WebSocket/SSE/Redis Pub-Sub/Kafka server+client real-time systems.

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": "timps_realtime_agent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestNoPlain-English task or context for the agent.
languageNoPrimary programming language (default: python).python

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.2.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Build' but does not explain whether it writes files, runs commands, returns code, requires permissions, or has side effects, leaving important operational behavior undisclosed.

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 a single, dense sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and easily scannable, though slightly too sparse to carry the full selection/warning burden.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, yet this is a broad, agentic capability. The description names the real-time protocols but omits expected return value, boundary conditions, authentication needs, file-safety behavior, or constraints, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with clear descriptions and 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-level insight, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the explanatory work.

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 identifies a specific capability: building WebSocket/SSE/Redis Pub-Sub/Kafka server+client real-time systems. It names concrete technologies and a clear action, though it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools beyond that domain.

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 usage guidance is provided: it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives, what prerequisites exist, or what kind of requests are out of scope. The intended use is only implied by the domain-specific phrase 'real-time systems'.

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