Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kernl

kernl

by fastslack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

kernel_agents_run

Manually trigger an agent run for a project with a specific goal or template variables and return the run result.

Instructions

Manually trigger an agent run with a specific goal. Returns the run result.

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": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>"
    },
    "name": "kernel_agents_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalNoGoal override (uses agent's goal_template if not provided)
projectNoProject id or slug this run works for. The agent's office must serve it. Omit to inherit the caller's project.
agent_idYesAgent ID to run
variablesNoJSON object of template variables for {{var}} substitution

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does little with it. "Returns the run result" is the only behavioral claim, and it does not say whether the call blocks until completion, how long a run may take, whether it consumes credits/quota, or what permissions the caller needs. For a tool that spawns an autonomous agent, those omissions matter.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return behavior, with no filler. It is tightly written, though the second sentence is thin enough that it borders on under-specification rather than economy.

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?

The tool takes four parameters, has no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only place to explain execution semantics. It says nothing about synchronous vs asynchronous behavior, expected duration, failure modes, or what fields the returned "run result" contains, leaving an agent unable to predict the call's cost or shape.

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 defines goal, project, agent_id, and variables, including the goal_template fallback and the project inheritance rule. The description echoes the goal concept ("with a specific goal") but adds no format, constraint, or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 pairs a specific verb ("trigger") with a specific resource ("an agent run") and adds the manual-vs-automatic distinction, which separates it from scheduled or trigger-driven execution. It does not, however, name or contrast with any sibling such as kernel_agents_chain or kernel_agents_call_meeting, so an agent must still infer which entry point to use.

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?

"Manually" implies the use case is an on-demand run as opposed to a trigger- or schedule-driven one, giving implied context for selection. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of prerequisites such as the agent existing or being enabled, and no alternative route suggested.

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