Skip to main content
Glama
bzdOS

hubd

by bzdOS
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

hub_presence

Check agent presence across mesh nodes from per-node snapshots, distinguishing stale records from dead agents. Filter by role or alive-only, and inspect coverage to confirm which nodes reported.

Instructions

The fleet roster as far as it can honestly be seen from here: this node's live registry plus every other node's published snapshot (presence..json, one small file per node, refreshed on heartbeat). Each row carries observedOn — WHICH node saw that heartbeat — and alsoOn when one agent name turns up on several. Read coverage before believing any absence: it lists every current mesh member with the age of its snapshot, or null when it has published none, and blindTo/note say so outright. That distinction is the reason this tool exists in this shape — one role read as 383 minutes since heartbeat on one node and 5.9 days on another, nothing was stale and nothing had diverged, the registries were simply of different machines, and an orchestrator escalated "worker is dead" four times over 92 hours while the worker worked. A role nobody reports is invisible, which is NOT the same as dead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fullNoreturn everything, uncapped. By default long lists are trimmed to fit an agent context and what was left out is reported in `truncated`.
roleNofilter to agents heartbeating under this role
aliveOnlyNodrop stale (TTL-expired) records, default false
memberDaysNoa node counts as a mesh member if it wrote within N days, default 30 — retired node names drop out of `coverage` on their own

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.14
    • addedInput schema / properties / memberDays
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "a node counts as a mesh member if it wrote within N days, default 30 — retired node names drop out of `coverage` on their own",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / full
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "return everything, uncapped. By default long lists are trimmed to fit an agent context and what was left out is reported in `truncated`.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the data source, key fields (observedOn, alsoOn, coverage, blindTo/note), and the nuanced behavior that absence is not equivalent to death, backed by a concrete example. This exceeds typical transparency.

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 verbose, including a lengthy anecdote that illustrates the tool's rationale. While the key information is front-loaded, the narrative adds length without directly aiding invocation. It is structured and readable, but not concise.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does well to explain the return data model (observedOn, alsoOn, coverage, blindTo/note) and the crucial interpretation caveat. It could be more explicit about the exact JSON shape, but it covers the essential context for correct usage.

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 documents all four parameters. The description adds some contextual meaning (e.g., role filtering in the anecdote) but does not materially enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 returns a fleet roster combining the node's live registry with other nodes' published snapshots. It differentiates itself from siblings by focusing on mesh-wide presence and the critical distinction between absence and death, giving it a specific, non-tautological purpose.

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 strong context for when to use the tool, emphasizing the need to read `coverage` before trusting absence and explaining the real-world pitfall of false dead alerts. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, though the context implies it.

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

Install Server

Other Tools