Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
VanSchulist

mcp-mesh

by VanSchulist
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

mesh_invoke_tool

Execute any downstream MCP server tool by specifying a server ID or namespaced tool name plus JSON arguments, enabling direct tool invocation through a single gateway.

Instructions

Directly execute any tool on a downstream MCP server. Pass server ID, target tool name, and input arguments dictionary.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serverNoThe downstream server ID (e.g. 'github', 'postgres'). Optional if tool_name is namespaced as 'server::tool'.
argumentsNoJSON arguments matching the tool's parameter schema.
tool_nameYesThe exact tool name to execute.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / server / description
      Previous value: -"The downstream server ID (e.g. 'github', 'postgres')."New value: +"The downstream server ID (e.g. 'github', 'postgres'). Optional if tool_name is namespaced as 'server::tool'."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "server",
-  "tool_name"
-]New value: +[
+  "tool_name"
+]
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure, and it does not say that this proxies arbitrary downstream operations that may be destructive, nor whether downstream auth/connection requirements must be met first. It also says nothing about how downstream errors or results are propagated back.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence largely echoes the schema's parameter names, which is mild redundancy but not wasteful.

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?

For a 3-parameter proxy-execution tool with a nested arguments object, no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves significant gaps: what the response looks like (the wrapped downstream result), how failures surface, and any precondition that the downstream server is reachable. The description is too thin given the complexity of what it does.

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 schema already documents all three parameters, including the 'server::tool' namespacing rule for `server`. The description only restates the parameter names ('server ID, target tool name, and input arguments dictionary') and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Directly execute') and resource ('any tool on a downstream MCP server'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the read-only siblings mesh_describe_tool, mesh_search_tools and mesh_status. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it sits at clear-but-not-differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus mesh_describe_tool or mesh_search_tools, and no prerequisites are given (e.g. that the target tool's schema should be fetched first, or that the downstream server must be registered/available). The word 'Directly' hints at bypassing a higher-level flow but the reader must infer it.

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