Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kernl

kernl

by fastslack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

kernel_agents_questions_triage_list

List office agents' pending questions and their four response options for chief review and triage.

Instructions

Chief only. List the office agents' questions waiting for your triage, with their 4 options.

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_questions_triage_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
__caller_agent_idNo[internal] injected by the agent executor when this tool is invoked from an agent run. Not meant to be set by external callers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the privileged-access requirement ('Chief only') and that results are pending items with 4 options each, implying a read-only list, but says nothing about ordering, volume, or whether options are answer choices.

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 compact sentences with the access restriction and scope front-loaded, and zero redundant wording. Every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, access, and rough return shape. The phrase 'their 4 options' is left unexplained, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the response structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter is the executor-injected __caller_agent_id, fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so there is no user-facing parameter for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('the office agents' questions waiting for your triage'), which an agent can distinguish from the answer/escalate siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings as alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Chief only' states an access precondition, and 'waiting for your triage' implies the moment to call it. But it never says what to do next (e.g., use kernel_agents_questions_answer or _escalate on the returned items), leaving alternatives to inference.

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