Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Compounding MCP

Compounding MCP

by dshguilherme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

swarm_nominate

Records a vote to nominate a candidate in a swarm, capturing a rationale for the nomination. Use it to coordinate candidate selection without asserting quality proof.

Instructions

Nominate an existing candidate with a rationale. This records a vote, not a quality proof.

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>",
      "worker": "<worker>",
      "candidate_sha": "<candidate_sha>",
      "rationale": "<rationale>"
    },
    "name": "swarm_nominate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workerYes
swarm_idYes
rationaleYes
candidate_shaYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key trait that this records a vote rather than performing verification, which is real added value. However it says nothing about permissions, whether repeat nominations are allowed, whether votes are reversible, or what the call returns.

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 the disambiguating caveat second. No filler, though the brevity is partly the cause of the parameter gaps.

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?

A four-parameter required-write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs substantially more description. Critical semantics (what swarm_id and worker identify, effect of duplicate nominations) are missing entirely.

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% across four required parameters, so the schema explains nothing. The description only lightly implies candidate_sha must reference an 'existing candidate' and that rationale is justification; swarm_id and worker are entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (nominate) and resource (existing candidate) plus the rationale requirement. The clause 'records a vote, not a quality proof' usefully disambiguates intent, though it does not name the sibling alternatives like swarm_abstain or swarm_commit.

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 statement of when to nominate versus when to abstain (swarm_abstain) or commit (swarm_commit). The 'vote, not a quality proof' note frames the concept but gives no decision criteria or prerequisites.

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