Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kernl

kernl

by fastslack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

kernel_agents_directory

Browse all departments and their agents, roles, capabilities, and connections to find the right agent for help or delegation. Filter by department/flow ID to narrow results.

Instructions

View the full office directory — all departments (flows) with their agents, roles, capabilities, and connections. Use this to find agents you can request help from or delegate work to.

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": "kernel_agents_directory"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flow_idNoFilter to a specific department/flow ID. Omit to see all.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flowsYes
unassignedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It implies read-only ('View') and usefully describes the returned content (agents, roles, capabilities, connections), but says nothing about permissions, size/volume of the directory, or pagination behavior for large offices.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences; the scope of the directory is front-loaded before the usage hint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is covered, and the description correctly states the directory's contents and the delegation use case. For a single optional-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only safety/volume context missing.

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% and the single flow_id parameter already documents 'Omit to see all.' The description never mentions the filter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('View the full office directory') and enumerates what the directory contains: departments/flows, agents, roles, capabilities, connections. This clearly separates it from a plain agent list, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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?

"Use this to find agents you can request help from or delegate work to" gives a concrete decision context for calling it. It lacks explicit exclusions or pointed alternatives (e.g. when to prefer a plain agent list or flows list instead), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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