de en es ja ko ru zh

pi-subagent

Name: pi-subagent
Author: guyiicn

by guyiicn

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

pi-subagent

Convierte la Pi CLI (@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent) en un subagente de codificación programable al que cualquier host MCP (ZCode, Claude Code, Cursor, …) pueda delegar tareas, hacer seguimiento de sesiones y matar procesos.

pi-subagent es un servidor MCP ligero que envuelve pi -p --mode json en 7 herramientas estructuradas: delegar tareas, recoger resultados, tomar decisiones de planificación, gestionar sesiones con nombre y abortar ejecuciones. Aislamiento de procesos, totalmente basado en sesiones, modo síncrono/asíncrono dual.

Por qué

Pi es un agente de codificación minimalista de terminal. En lugar de enseñar a Pi metodología, este proyecto trata a Pi como un trabajador delegable: un agente host (ZCode / Claude Code) decide cuándo delegar, lanza una tarea autocontenida y recoge el resultado. Un proceso Pi = una ejecución de subagente aislada.

Aislamiento de procesos — cada delegación genera un proceso hijo pi -p. Un fallo de Pi solo afecta a esa ejecución.
Totalmente basado en sesiones — cada tarea se vincula a una sesión con nombre (p. ej. feat-auth); las llamadas posteriores continúan automáticamente.
Síncrono / asíncrono — por defecto async (evita timeouts en las llamadas de herramientas del host); recoge con pi_status de sondeo largo.
Planificable — pi_plan es una función de decisión pura de 5 etapas (rechazar / capacidad / reutilizar / modificar / modo), totalmente probada por unit tests.
MCP universal — cualquier cliente MCP estándar puede cargarlo.

Related MCP server: pi-delegate-mcp

Arquitectura

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  MCP Host (ZCode / Claude Code / Pi / Cursor …)              │
└───────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────┘
                            │ MCP (JSON-RPC over stdio)
                            ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  pi-subagent-server  (Node/TS)                                │
│  ┌────────────┐  ┌──────────────┐  ┌────────────────────┐   │
│  │ Tool layer │  │ Session      │  │ Pi runner          │   │
│  │ (7 tools)  │─▶│ registry     │─▶│ (spawn pi -p)      │   │
│  │ + plan()   │  │ + persist    │  │ parse agent_end    │   │
│  └─────┬──────┘  │ + _snapshot  │  │ + tool_execution   │   │
│        │         └──────────────┘  └─────────┬──────────┘   │
│        │                           ┌────────▼─────────┐     │
│        └───────────────────────────│ Run registry     │     │
│           (kill)                   │ + process-table  │     │
│                                   └──────────────────┘     │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                            │ child_process.spawn({ cwd })
                            ▼
                   ┌─────────────────────┐
                   │  pi CLI (0.77+)     │
                   └─────────────────────┘

Tres capas con límites claros: Capa de herramientas (esquema MCP + función pura plan()) / Registro de sesiones (estado + persistencia + redacción) / Ejecutor (spawn de pi, parseo de NDJSON, tabla de procesos).

Herramientas

Herramienta	Propósito
`pi_plan`	Decidir: si delegar, síncrono/asíncrono, cuántas sesiones
`pi_delegate`	Despachar una tarea (por defecto asíncrono; las nuevas sesiones esperan el handshake)
`pi_status`	Recoger el resultado de una ejecución (sondeo largo)
`pi_session_list`	Listar sesiones (omitir `cwd` para el conjunto completo que `pi_plan` necesita)
`pi_session_snapshot`	Inspeccionar una sesión
`pi_session_fork`	Ramificar una sesión para probar otra vía
`pi_kill`	Abortar una ejecución
`pi_task_create`	Crear una tarea multi-etapa (el host escribe primero `_plan-draft.md`)
`pi_task_plan`	Despachar una revisión de dominio del plan (recoger vía `pi_status`, veredicto auto-parseado)
`pi_task_stage_run`	Ejecutar una etapa: síncrono (esperar el resultado) o asíncrono (devuelve runId)
`pi_task_stage_collect`	Recoger una ejecución de etapa asíncrona; auto-juzga y re-despacha (máx. 3), si no manual
`pi_task_list`	Listar tareas (filtrar por taskId / estado)

Bucle de revisión: después de pi_task_plan, recoge con pi_status(runId). Cuando la ejecución termina, el servidor detecta que es una ejecución de revisión, parsea _plan-reviewed.md y almacena planVerdict / planReviewedPath en la tarea. Los prompts de etapa incluyen automáticamente el plan revisado y los archivos de salida de las etapas de dependencia superadas.

Etapas asíncronas: pasa mode: "async" a pi_task_stage_run para evitar bloquear una llamada de herramienta durante toda la ejecución (recomendado cuando el host MCP impone un timeout corto de herramienta). Recoge con pi_task_stage_collect(taskId, stageId). Los intentos fallidos se re-despachan bajo un nombre de sesión nuevo para evitar contaminación del historial; después de 3 fallos la etapa pasa a manual con un panel de decisión (retry_with_new_hint se soporta vía promptHintOverride).

Recuperación tras reinicio: volver a ejecutar pi_task_create con el mismo taskId fusiona en lugar de entrar en conflicto. Las etapas cuyo archivo de salida ya existe y pasa la validación se marcan como passed automáticamente, de modo que las tareas interrumpidas se reanudan sin editar manualmente tasks.json.

Modelo de sesión

Cada sesión tiene un nombre legible + el UUID de Pi + cwd + goal.
El primer pi_delegate crea la sesión (goal es obligatorio); las llamadas posteriores continúan automáticamente.
El registro persiste en ~/.pi-subagent/registry.json (escritura atómica; al reiniciar, los registros running interrumpidos se corrigen a error).
Límite de concurrencia: 4 ejecuciones en curso; una sesión nunca se ejecuta concurrentemente.
Las tareas persisten en ~/.pi-subagent/tasks.json (escritura atómica; las etapas en ejecución se corrigen a failed(interrupted_by_restart) al reiniciar).

Instalación

git clone <this-repo> && cd pi-subagent
npm install

Requisito previo: la CLI pi está instalada (npm i -g @earendil-works/pi-coding-agent) y en PATH.

Configurar un host MCP

Añade a la configuración de tu cliente MCP:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "pi-subagent": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["tsx", "/abs/path/to/pi-subagent/src/server.ts"]
    }
  }
}

Variables de entorno opcionales:

PI_SUBAGENT_REGISTRY — ruta del registro (por defecto ~/.pi-subagent/registry.json)
PI_BIN — anula el ejecutable de pi (usado por los tests)

Test

npm test           # full suite (140 tests)
npm run test:fast  # dot reporter

Los tests usan un pi falso (test/fixtures/fake-pi.sh) y cubren: asíncrono/síncrono, timeout, kill, fallo de creación de sesión, multi-espera, límite de progreso, reglas de planificación (tabla-driven + tests de propiedad de 100 iteraciones), persistencia del registro, redacción, etc.

Estructura del proyecto

src/
├── types.ts                 # all shared types + error codes
├── errors.ts                # ToolError helpers
├── runner/                  # parse.ts, argv.ts, spawn.ts, process-table.ts
├── registry/                # session.ts, run.ts, persist.ts, redact.ts
├── scheduler/               # keywords.ts, plan.ts (5-stage pure function)
├── tools/                   # delegate, status, plan-tool, session, kill
└── server.ts                # MCP entry (stdio)
skills/pi-subagent/          # SKILL.md + delegation-patterns (strategy layer)
test/                        # fixtures/ + *.test.ts
docs/                        # design.md (spec) + implementation-plan.md

Diseño y proceso

Este proyecto pasó por diseño colaborativo + 4 rondas de revisión externa antes de la implementación. La especificación y el plan están en docs/:

docs/design.md — especificación de diseño completa (arquitectura, contratos de herramientas, manejo de errores, reglas del planificador, estrategia de pruebas). Cada contrato es trazable a una nota de revisión (R1–R4).
docs/implementation-plan.md — 19 tareas TDD (escribir test que falla → implementar → pasar → commit).

Decisiones de diseño clave, todas respaldadas por pruebas reales de la salida de pi -p y revisión externa:

cwd ≠ almacenamiento de sesión — spawn({ cwd }) controla el directorio de trabajo; los archivos de sesión de Pi usan su ubicación por defecto (no contamina el proyecto).
async por defecto + handshake — las nuevas sesiones esperan el evento session de Pi antes de devolver (con un sessionStartTimeoutMs), de modo que el host siempre recibe un piSessionId real.
Planificador multi-etapa — plan() es rechazar → capacidad → reutilizar → modificar → modo, donde los modificadores se apilan en lugar de coincidir con el primero (una lección de la ronda de revisión 1).
Redacción de progreso — los resultados de las herramientas se truncan y se limpian de tokens/claves antes de almacenarse.

Estado

Implementación funcional, 140 tests pasando. Aún no publicado en npm — ejecutar desde el código fuente vía tsx.

Licencia

MIT

Available Tools

7 tools

pi_delegateC

委派任务给 Pi 子代理（默认 async）

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cwd`	No
`goal`	No
`mode`	No
`prompt`	Yes
`session`	Yes
`constraints`	No
`runTimeoutMs`	No
`allowUnknownTools`	No

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only mentions 'default async'. It does not explain side effects, how results are returned, or whether the tool is idempotent. Critical details are missing.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence, but it is overly terse for a tool with 8 parameters. While front-loaded, it lacks structure and does not fully utilize the space to convey necessary information.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to cover usage patterns, return values, or async/sync behavior beyond the default.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters, not even the required 'prompt' and 'session'. The enum for 'mode' is mentioned only implicitly as 'default async' but no details.

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 clearly states that the tool delegates tasks to a Pi sub-agent with a default async mode. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pi_plan or pi_session_fork, which could have overlapping functionality.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any preconditions or exclusions mentioned. The description is too brief to inform decision-making.

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

pi_killC

中止 run

Name	Required	Description	Default
`runId`	Yes

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states '中止 run' without detailing side effects, reversibility, or required permissions.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Extremely short but at the expense of clarity; it fails to provide necessary information, making it underspecified rather than appropriately concise.

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

Completeness1/5

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

A kill operation with one parameter is simple, but the description omits return values, error cases, and prerequisites, rendering it incomplete for reliable agent invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The only parameter 'runId' has no description in the schema or in the text, leaving its purpose and format entirely unspecified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '中止 run' conveys the action (abort) and resource (run), but is in Chinese and does not differentiate from siblings like pi_delegate or pi_plan.

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 guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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

pi_planC

调度决策：该不该委派、sync/async、开几个 session

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cwd`	Yes
`task`	Yes
`fanout`	No
`estComplexity`	No
`preferredMode`	No

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; the description does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or whether the tool is read-only or modifies state. The term '决策' implies decision-making but no details on consequences.

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 very concise (one line). It is front-loaded with the core idea, but at the cost of missing important details. It could be slightly expanded without being verbose.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, parameter usage, or behavioral traits, making it hard for an agent to use 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?

0% schema description coverage; the description does not explain parameter semantics beyond their names (e.g., fanout, estComplexity). Field names give some clues but are insufficient for proper invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '调度决策：该不该委派、sync/async、开几个 session' indicates it is for scheduling decisions, but it is vague. It mentions delegation and session management, aligning with sibling tools like pi_delegate and pi_session_fork, but does not clearly state the tool's specific action or output.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when to delegate or not, or how this relates to other tools like pi_delegate or pi_session_fork.

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

pi_session_forkD

派生 session

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes
`from`	Yes

TDQS

D1.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations provided; description is too minimal to disclose behavioral traits like destructiveness, permissions, or lifecycle impact.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Extremely brief but at the expense of completeness. Not a model of efficiency; it omits essential information.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with two required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides zero contextual completeness.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%; description fails to explain what 'from' and 'to' represent, leaving all parameters underspecified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description is a single Japanese phrase '派生 session' meaning 'fork session'. It suggests duplication but lacks a clear verb-resource structure or differentiation from siblings.

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 guidance on when to fork vs using siblings like pi_session_list or pi_session_snapshot. No context provided.

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

pi_session_listA

列 session（不传 cwd 取全量，供 pi_plan 用）

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cwd`	No

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It implies a read-only operation ('list') and explains cwd filtering behavior, but does not disclose potential side effects, auth requirements, or other safety guarantees. Adequate but minimal.

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no superfluous information. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and intended usage context. It does not explain return format, but for a list operation this is acceptable. Slightly more detail would improve completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that omitting cwd returns all sessions, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. This provides sufficient guidance for a single optional parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'session', with additional detail on behavior when cwd is omitted. It also specifies use for pi_plan, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pi_session_fork or pi_session_snapshot.

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?

The description provides context on when to use the tool (for pi_plan) and the effect of omitting cwd. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for an AI agent.

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

pi_session_snapshotC

取 session 详情

Name	Required	Description	Default
`session`	Yes

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description implies a read operation but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or disclose any behavioral traits.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Very concise but under-specified. A single phrase with no additional structure or front-loading of key information.

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 the simplicity (1 param, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. No information on return value, behavior, or context.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. The parameter 'session' lacks any description in both schema and tool description, leaving its meaning ambiguous.

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 '取 session 详情' clearly indicates fetching session details. It distinguishes from siblings like pi_session_list (listing) and pi_session_fork (forking) but does not specify the snapshot aspect.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. No context on prerequisites or alternatives.

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

pi_statusC

取 run 结果（long-poll）

Name	Required	Description	Default
`runId`	Yes
`waitTimeoutMs`	No

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'long-poll' implying blocking behavior, but does not disclose idempotency, destructiveness, authentication needs, or error handling. The transparency is minimal.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely short (one phrase), which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the core purpose but does not provide enough detail to be fully helpful.

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 the tool has two parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits details on return format, long-poll behavior nuances, timeout semantics, and relationship to sibling tools.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameters. 'runId' and 'waitTimeoutMs' remain undocumented in meaning. The description adds no value beyond the schema's structural definition.

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 clearly states the verb '取' (get) and resource 'run result' with 'long-poll' qualifier. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like pi_kill or pi_plan, which are distinct actions but no explicit differentiation is provided.

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 this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or conditions for use. The description is purely functional.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

7 tool updatesv0.1.0Jul 1, 2026
- First observedpi_delegate
- First observedpi_kill
- First observedpi_plan
- First observedpi_session_fork
- First observedpi_session_list
- First observedpi_session_snapshot
- First observedpi_status

Deploy Server

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Scored 2026-07-01 07:25 across 7 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: delegation, kill, planning, session management, and status. No overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the 'pi_' prefix, but the structure varies: some are verbs (pi_delegate, pi_kill), others are noun_verb (pi_session_fork). Overall readable and consistent prefix helps.

Tool Count5/5

7 tools is appropriate for a subagent manager covering delegation, planning, session lifecycle, and status retrieval.

Completeness4/5

Core operations are covered, though missing explicit session creation or update tools. Forking may serve creation, and kill provides termination.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

ReasonOAuth
io.github.reason-machines
Start and manage Reason cloud coding agents, projects and sessions from any MCP client.
Coding Agents Agent Orchestration Autonomous Agents
1
https://mcp.reasonmachines.com/mcp
Node CommandOAuth
io.github.huseyincig
Remote MCP server exposing your Node Command fleet (files, shell, processes, browser) to AI hosts.
File Systems Shell Access Browser Automation
1
https://mcp.nodecommand.app/mcp
Roamer MCPOAuth
com.mathismeadows
Hosted MCP server and Agent Skills for specs, engineering threads, and project memory.
Agent Orchestration Developer Tools Project Management
1
https://roamer-mcp.mathismeadows.com/mcp
AI.TV MCP ServerOAuth
tv.ai
Remote MCP server for AI.TV creators — delegate account operations to your AI agent over MCP.
Entertainment & Media AI & Machine Learning
2
https://api.ai.tv/mcp

Related MCP Servers

pokeclaw
Coding Agents Code Execution Command Line
madebydia
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables MCP clients to spawn and control Codex CLI and Claude Code sessions on the host machine, with session management and filesystem access.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-06-08 12:59 UTC)
4
MIT
pi-delegate-mcp
Coding Agents Code Analysis Autonomous Agents
sotola122
A
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
Delegates bounded coding tasks from MCP clients to the Pi Coding Agent over stdio. Supports review, verification, implementation, and batch operations with long-running task polling.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-08-19 02:08 UTC)
MIT
pi-agent-mcp
Coding Agents Agent Orchestration Autonomous Agents
a809384377
F
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
Enables MCP hosts like Claude Code and Codex to spawn, manage, and interact with persistent, reusable Pi coding-agent sessions, supporting task dispatch, status checks, and session lifecycle control.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-08-22 06:12 UTC)
2 npm
-
agentmux
Autonomous Agents Agent Orchestration Developer Tools
seaweedsoup98
A
license
B
quality
B
maintenance
Enables any MCP host to delegate work to multiple coding-agent CLIs such as Codex, Claude Code, and Antigravity as subagents, preserving native sessions and supporting team-based supervision and agent-to-agent messaging.
Updated a month ago (2026-09-22 04:11 UTC)
17
13 npm
Apache 2.0