Skip to main content
Glama
Compounding MCP

Compounding MCP

by dshguilherme

swarm_init

Initialize a persistent optimization swarm with a task spec, episode budget, scoring metric, and minimize/maximize direction for coordinated agent experiments.

Instructions

Create a persistent swarm with a task spec and episode budget.

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": {
      "swarm_id": "<swarm_id>",
      "task": "<task>",
      "budget": "<budget>",
      "metric": "<metric>",
      "direction": "<direction>"
    },
    "name": "swarm_init"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYes
budgetYes
metricYes
swarm_idYes
directionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'persistent' and 'episode budget,' which hint at lifecycle and resource constraints, but it does not explain side effects, permissions, return behavior, or how budget exhaustion is handled.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for its length, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than a lack of conciseness.

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 a creation tool with five required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It omits parameter definitions, usage context, and behavioral details that an agent would need to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% across five required parameters. The description only maps to two of them ('task spec' and 'episode budget') and adds no meaning for swarm_id, metric, or direction; the enum for direction is not mentioned at all, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Create) and resource (persistent swarm), and the phrase 'task spec and episode budget' hints at the required inputs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the many swarm_* siblings, such as swarm_status or swarm_commit, so the agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 swarm_init versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer that this is the first call in a swarm lifecycle.

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