Universal Brute Workpack is a local-first workbench MCP server that offloads bulk work from your main AI agent thread, providing a comprehensive suite of tools with graceful degradation and no API key required for basic use.
Web & Network: Search the web via Exa, Tavily, DuckDuckGo, or direct HTTP fallback (search.web); fetch any URL (search.fetch).
Filesystem Operations: Glob patterns (fs.glob), CPU-parallel content search (fs.grep), list directories (fs.list), and read/write/copy/move files (file.read, file.write, file.copy, file.move).
Code Tools: Apply exact text replacements with automatic rollback on syntax failure (code.patch); run structured heuristic code reviews (code.review).
Command Execution: Run local shell commands with configurable timeout and working directory (command.exec).
Validation: Syntax/config checks (validate.check), load/summarize JSON or JS modules (validate.load), and git diff (validate.diff).
Memory & Recall: Search via external memory/vector service with local text file fallback (memory.search, memory.recall).
CPU-Parallel Worker Tools: Analyze files in parallel for size, line counts, TODOs/FIXMEs (worker.analyze); parallel directory/file diff by SHA256 and size (worker.diff); check workpack/worker pool/sidecar status (worker.status).
Audit Pipeline: Prepare audit run directories with TaskCards and report dropboxes (audit.prepare), ingest worker reports (audit.ingest_report), run full audit pipelines (audit.run), and collect EvidenceBundles with gate files (audit.collect).
Agent Orchestration: Spawn single external agent tasks via LLM sidecar (agent.spawn); run concurrent multi-agent pipelines with configurable concurrency and stagger timing (agent.pipeline).
All tools degrade gracefully — e.g., web search falls back to DuckDuckGo, memory search falls back to local text files, and agent tools report not_configured instead of crashing when services are unavailable.
Provides fallback web search capability when no other web search provider is configured.
Allows spawning agent tasks and pipelines using an OpenAI-compatible API endpoint.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@universal-brute-workpack grep for 'FIXME' in the project directory"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
可以把它理解成“Codex 和任意 MCP Agent 都能用的通用版 OpenClaw SC”：默认百路、可配置100+ Agent 流水线 + 跟随全部可用 CPU 并行度的本地 Worker。
Universal Brute Workpack（UBW）把一个普通 Agent 客户端升级成本地满配工作台。Codex、OpenClaw、Claude Desktop、Cursor、Cline、Continue 或其他 MCP 客户端，都可以通过一个服务获得并行 Agent、本地多核 Worker 和完整工具链。
默认支持最多100个流水线任务，任务上限和并发数都可以配置提高。适合大面积全网调研、代码审计、日志扫描和多方案探索。
本地 fs.grep、文件分析、切片、diff 和批处理通过 Worker Threads（工作线程）运行。默认 Worker 池自动跟随机器可用 CPU 并行度，多核机器不再闲着。
能用 CPU 完成的搜索、哈希、统计和差异分析，不需要让昂贵模型逐个处理，速度更快，成本接近零。
大批量探索可以交给便宜 API 模型；Codex Pro 或其他强 Agent 保留给规划、复审、合并和最终裁决。
文件读写、并行 grep、命令执行、网页搜索兜底、记忆召回兜底、代码补丁、验证、Agent 派生和流水线都在一个 Workpack 里。
code.patch 使用精确替换；JS 类文件修改后自动运行 node --check，语法失败就恢复原文件。
没有配置 LLM 时，本地文件和 Worker 工具仍然可用；外部搜索、记忆或 Agent 服务可以按配置逐级启用，不需要整套系统一起停摆。
它通过 MCP 的 stdio、Streamable HTTP 或 legacy SSE 提供能力，可以作为多个 Agent 客户端共用的本地执行层。
Related MCP server: Coding Agent MCP Server
安装后可以直接让 Agent：
用 UBW 把这个仓库切片并行搜索
用本地多核 Worker 扫描所有文件
把这个问题拆成100路 Agent 调研
用便宜模型跑批量候选，最后由主 Agent 复核
修改这段代码，验证失败自动回撤默认 Agent 流水线最多100个任务、默认20并发；可以通过 UBW_AGENT_MAX_PIPELINE_TASKS 和 UBW_AGENT_CONCURRENCY 调整。大规模 API Agent 任务会真实产生模型费用，本地 Worker 任务不消耗模型 Token。
Universal Brute Workpack is a portable, MCP-native edition of the OpenClaw sc idea:
100 pipeline tasks by default, configurable beyond 100;
local worker pools that follow available CPU parallelism;
zero-token local grep, slicing, hashing, analysis, and diff;
API-backed Agent pipelines for wide research and audits;
rollback-aware code patching;
files, commands, search, memory fallback, validation, and evidence collection behind one MCP server;
support for Codex, OpenClaw, Claude Desktop, Cursor, Cline, Continue, and other MCP clients.
Available now:
Full-capability MCP tool bundle with stdio, Streamable HTTP, and legacy SSE transports.
26 neutral tools for search, fetch, file operations, code patching/review, commands, validation, memory search/recall, worker analyze/diff, audit chain, status, and Agent spawn/pipeline.
Codex installer defaults to codex_daily, exposing 12 low-noise tools for web search, bulk file discovery, CPU-parallel grep, read-only review, and validation. Full capability remains available through explicit profiles.
CPU-parallel fs.grep through a local worker pool. By default it uses available machine parallelism; set UBW_WORKER_POOL_SIZE only when you want to limit it.
code.patch uses exact replacements and rolls back JS-like files when node --check fails.
Managed sidecar mode for agent.spawn and agent.pipeline; users do not need to start a second terminal for the sidecar.
Concurrent API-backed agent.pipeline with configurable task cap, concurrency, stagger timing, and timeout.
TaskCard/runDir/collector/EvidenceBundle audit chain through audit.prepare, audit.ingest_report, audit.run, and audit.collect.
Zero-key first run: DuckDuckGo/direct HTTP fallback for web search and local text/JSON/Markdown/log fallback for memory search.
Configurable profiles, deny lists, filesystem roots, provider keys, memory backends, LLM endpoints, pipeline task limits, and stagger timing.
OpenAI-compatible API mode for agent.spawn and agent.pipeline; if no model backend is configured, Agent tools return not_configured instead of killing the MCP process.
Optional Codex companion skills under integrations/codex-skills/: a general ubw boundary guide plus the advanced ubw-audit entry.
Optional Codex plugin wrapper under plugins/universal-brute-workpack/ plus .agents/plugins/marketplace.json for users who want UBW to appear in the Codex plugin UI.
Proven pattern / current portable base:
OpenClaw has already demonstrated 100-way prompt-contained pre-audit as an external orchestration pattern.
Universal Brute Workpack now ships the portable base for that pattern: local worker pool, managed sidecar, concurrent pipeline controls, TaskCards, run directories, collector contracts, EvidenceBundles, failure thresholds, and main-Agent review gates.
Host-mediated mode lets Codex/Cursor/Cline/other Agent hosts create native subagents while UBW owns prompts, report ingestion, collection, and gate artifacts.
The high-value path is a two-layer audit loop: broad low-cost candidate discovery, then focused high-quality review by a smaller number of stronger Agents.
For Codex, run the installer once:
npx -y universal-brute-workpack@0.1.9 install codexThen restart Codex. The installer copies UBW into a stable local version path, backs up ~/.codex/config.toml, replaces mcp_servers.ubw, and makes Codex run node .../src/bridge.js directly instead of keeping npx in the daily MCP process tree. Codex installs use --profile codex_daily by default to keep the everyday tools list small.
Verify the local Codex registration with:
npx -y universal-brute-workpack@0.1.9 doctor --codex --profile codex_dailyRollback the Codex config backup with:
npx -y universal-brute-workpack@0.1.9 rollback codexOther MCP clients can auto-start the workpack with npx:
{
"mcpServers": {
"ubw": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "universal-brute-workpack@0.1.9", "serve", "--stdio"]
}
}
}Manual Codex config is still available as an advanced fallback:
[mcp_servers.ubw]
command = "npx"
args = ["-y", "universal-brute-workpack@0.1.9", "serve", "--stdio", "--profile", "codex_daily"]For normal Codex use, prefer --profile codex_daily; use admin only when you intentionally want the full tool surface. The one-command installer is preferred for Codex because it writes a stable local node .../src/bridge.js registration and avoids an extra npx Node process per UBW MCP instance.
The MCP setup gives Codex the tools, but it does not make UBW appear in Codex's plugin browser or @ plugin picker.
If you want the plugin UI experience, install the optional Codex plugin wrapper from this repository's marketplace. This does not require official marketplace curation; a user can add this repository marketplace directly:
codex plugin marketplace add <path-or-repo-root-containing-.agents/plugins/marketplace.json>
codex plugin add universal-brute-workpack@universal-brute-workpackThat wrapper is skills-only; register the MCP server once in top-level Codex config as mcp_servers.ubw. If your Codex build exposes plugin installation through the app UI instead of the CLI, add this repository marketplace there, install the wrapper, then start a new thread before @Universal Brute Workpack is visible.
No API key is required for first run. In codex_daily, search.web, local file discovery, CPU-parallel grep, read-only review, and validation work out of the box. Memory fallback, audit dispatch, raw Agent tools, URL fetch, writes, and command execution are available only when you explicitly choose a profile that exposes them.
If Tavily or Exa is not configured, exhausted, or unavailable, search.web falls back instead of crashing. If no memory/vector service is configured, memory.search falls back to local text search. If no LLM endpoint is configured, agent.spawn and agent.pipeline report not_configured while every local tool continues working.
There are two Codex integration layers:
Layer | What It Does | Install Path |
MCP server | Gives Codex the actual UBW tools through a stable local | Run |
Codex plugin wrapper | Makes UBW show as a Codex plugin and bundles the companion skills. It does not register a second MCP server. | Add this repository marketplace, then install from |
The plugin wrapper is manual for now. npm cannot automatically register a Codex plugin in every user's app, and official marketplace curation is not required for self-distribution. The wrapper is included so users can install the companion skills deliberately while keeping the MCP server registered once in top-level config. The install codex command handles the MCP server registration; the plugin wrapper is only for plugin UI and skills.
The package includes draft-ready official MCP Registry metadata in server.json and package.json#mcpName. See docs/distribution.md for the registry, aggregator, Smithery, and Codex plugin-wrapper status before publishing a new release.
For the local stdio bundle route, UBW can stage, validate, and pack an MCPB directory:
npm run mcpb:stage
npm run mcpb:validate
npm run mcpb:packSee docs/mcpb.md. This is separate from Smithery URL publishing, which still requires a public HTTPS Streamable HTTP endpoint.
Codex users can copy the lightweight companion skills so Codex loads short scenario guides instead of repeatedly reading the full UBW manual:
Copy-Item -Recurse .\integrations\codex-skills\ubw* "$env:USERPROFILE\.codex\skills\"Included skills: ubw and ubw-audit.
After connecting the MCP server, call tools from your Agent client:
search.web
query: "latest MCP client stdio configuration"fs.grep
root: "."
pattern: "TODO"
maxResults: 50worker.diff
left: "src"
right: "backup/src"
maxFiles: 10000code.review
path: "src"
maxFiles: 200
maxFindings: 30agent.pipeline
tasks:
- prompt: "Review src/tools/core.js for command execution risks."
- prompt: "Review src/lib/profiles.js for profile bypass risks."
model: "cheap-review-model"
concurrency: 20
staggerMs: 50audit.prepare
tasks:
- title: "Review tool permissions"
prompt: "Find profile bypasses and report compact JSON findings."
maxFindingsPerTask: 3If no LLM endpoint is configured, Agent tasks return not_configured instead of crashing. Local tools still work.
Variable | Default | Purpose |
| package example config | Path to a custom main config JSON. |
| package example profiles | Path to a custom profile/deny JSON. |
|
| Active profile. |
|
| Allowed filesystem roots, separated by |
|
| Enable CPU worker pool for local bulk work. |
| available CPU parallelism | Override worker pool size; empty means auto. |
|
| Minimum candidate files before parallel grep. |
|
| Per-file worker scan cap. |
| empty | Optional Tavily web search key. |
| empty | Optional Exa web search key. |
| empty | Optional external memory/vector service endpoint. |
| empty | Optional OpenAI-compatible base URL for Agent tasks. |
| empty | Optional model API key. |
| provider default | Optional model name. |
|
|
|
| empty | External sidecar URL when using external mode. |
|
| Managed sidecar port; |
|
| Pipeline task cap. |
|
| Concurrent Agent tasks inside pipeline. |
|
| Delay between pipeline tasks. |
|
| Agent task timeout. |
|
| Managed sidecar task record cap. |
Tool names are neutral: search.web, file.read, command.exec, agent.spawn, and so on.
Raw serve default mode is full capability: profile=admin, roots=["*"].
install codex defaults to profile=codex_daily, which exposes search.web, fs.*, file.read, worker.*, code.review, and validate.* but hides writes, arbitrary commands, URL fetch, memory fallback, audit dispatch, and raw Agent tools.
Narrow profiles and per-profile deny lists are compatibility and safety knobs for clients that want them.
Provider keys, memory/vector service URLs, model endpoints, pipeline limits, and stagger timing are configured through config/universal-brute-workpack.example.json, .env, or your MCP client environment.
memory.search / memory.recall prefer a configured memory service, then fall back to local text/JSON/Markdown/log search instead of failing.
agent.spawn / agent.pipeline use the managed sidecar by default. Set LLM_BASE_URL, optional LLM_API_KEY, and LLM_MODEL for real model calls.
stdio, for MCP clients:
npx -y universal-brute-workpack@0.1.9 serve --stdioStreamable HTTP, for clients or hosted gateways that need a single HTTP MCP endpoint:
npx -y universal-brute-workpack@0.1.9 serve --transport streamable-http --port 18890 --profile adminThe MCP endpoint is http://127.0.0.1:18890/mcp. A static server card is exposed at http://127.0.0.1:18890/.well-known/mcp/server-card.json.
For a Smithery URL publishing hosting recipe and one-command public endpoint preflight, see docs/smithery-hosting.md.
Legacy SSE, for older clients that prefer a local server:
npx -y universal-brute-workpack@0.1.9 serve --transport sse --port 18890 --profile adminDoctor:
npx -y universal-brute-workpack@0.1.9 doctorFor local development, copy .env.example to .env.
Agent Client
└─ MCP stdio / Streamable HTTP / legacy SSE
└─ Universal Brute Workpack bridge
├─ local tools: fs/search/file/code/command/validate
├─ CPU worker pool: parallel grep and local bulk scans
├─ fallback tools: DuckDuckGo/direct HTTP, local memory keyword scan
├─ managed sidecar: isolated Agent spawn/pipeline process
└─ audit layer: TaskCards, reports, collector, EvidenceBundles, gateSee docs/tools.md.
For the host-mediated audit flow, where the host Agent dispatches native workers and UBW owns the runDir, reports, collector, EvidenceBundle, and gate, see docs/host-mediated.md.
See docs/configuration.md for provider keys, memory backends, profiles, deny lists, roots, and pipeline limits.
Business Source License 1.1. The source is available for personal, research, academic, and small non-commercial use. Enterprise production use, commercial products, SaaS, hosted MCP services, Agent platforms, marketplace redistribution, OEM/white-label use, and commercial derivatives require written authorization from the licensor.
Change License: Apache License v2.0.
Change Date: 2030-06-29.
See LICENSE for the full English and Chinese terms.
Do I need an API key?
No for first run. Local tools, DuckDuckGo/direct HTTP fallback, and local memory keyword search work without keys. You only need keys for stronger web providers or model-backed Agent tasks.
Does BUSL restrict personal use?
Personal, academic, research, and small non-commercial use are free under the included license. Enterprise production use, commercial services, SaaS, hosted MCP services, Agent platforms, marketplace redistribution, OEM/white-label use, and commercial derivatives require written authorization before the Change Date.
Is 100-way Agent orchestration already shipped?
The portable base is shipped in v0.1.x: worker pool, managed sidecar, concurrent API pipeline, TaskCards, runDir, report ingestion, collector summary, EvidenceBundle, gate file, optional Codex companion skills, and an optional Codex plugin wrapper. OpenClaw has demonstrated the 100-way pre-audit pattern in a larger system; UBW provides the generic MCP package foundation for that style of workflow. Codex daily installs intentionally keep that surface narrow until a task asks for audit or Agent orchestration.
What happens when keys or quotas are missing?
The workpack degrades instead of dying: Tavily/Exa can fall back to DuckDuckGo/direct HTTP, external memory can fall back to local keyword search, and Agent tools return not_configured without breaking file/search/command tools.
Can this use Codex Pro or another subscription Agent as workers?
Not directly by taking a hidden API key. The host-mediated audit flow lets the host Agent use its own native subagents, threads, or tools while UBW manages task cards, run directories, report ingestion, collector contracts, and evidence bundles.
Issues and pull requests are welcome for bug fixes, docs, provider adapters, and safer tool implementations. For development:
npm install
npm run doctor
npm run smoke
npm run smoke:host
npm run smoke:stdio
npm run pack:drynode --check .\src\bridge.js
node --check .\src\tools\core.js
node --check .\sidecar\server.js
npm run smoke
npm run smoke:host
npm run smoke:stdio
npm run doctor
npm run pack:dryFor collaboration, licensing, or partnership inquiries, contact: haoyun18881@gmail.com
Run an external multi-agent pipeline through the managed sidecar adapter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | ||
| tasks | No | ||
| maxTasks | No | ||
| staggerMs | No | ||
| concurrency | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or any behavior beyond the high-level action. The term 'managed sidecar adapter' is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but its brevity sacrifices informativeness. It could be restructured to front-load the purpose and add parameter context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no schema description, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. An agent lacks essential information to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It fails to explain any of the 5 parameters (model, tasks, maxTasks, staggerMs, concurrency). The agent cannot understand parameter semantics from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Run' and the resource 'external multi-agent pipeline', and specifies the mechanism 'through the managed sidecar adapter'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'agent.spawn' which likely spawns an agent. However, it could be more explicit about what constitutes a 'multi-agent pipeline'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 like 'agent.spawn'. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Spawn one external agent through the configured sidecar adapter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | ||
| prompt | No | ||
| system | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behaviors. It fails to mention whether spawning is synchronous, failure modes, or side effects. Only states the mechanism.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but omits essential detail. Not a model of conciseness as it sacrifices completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no param descriptions, no annotations. Description fails to explain return values, behavior, or prerequisites for a tool that spawns agents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 3 parameters (model, prompt, system) with 0% coverage. Description adds no explanation of these parameters or their roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (spawn) and the resource (external agent) via a specific mechanism (configured sidecar adapter). It distinguishes from siblings like agent.pipeline.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent.pipeline. No prerequisites or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Collect an existing audit runDir into an EvidenceBundle and gate file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| runDir | No | ||
| maxFindings | No | ||
| failureThreshold | No | ||
| mainThreadSampleRate | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions collecting into a bundle and gate file but does not disclose side effects, permissions, safety profile, or whether it modifies the input. The behavioral traits are severely under-specified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise and avoids fluff. However, it is too minimal to be effective, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity. No structural elements like sections or lists are used.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, output, or relationship to other tools like audit.run or audit.ingest_report, leaving critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It does not mention any of the four parameters (runDir, maxFindings, failureThreshold, mainThreadSampleRate) or their roles, adding no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Collect' and the resource 'existing audit runDir' into an 'EvidenceBundle and gate file', which gives a good sense of the tool's primary function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like audit.ingest_report or audit.run, and the term 'runDir' is not fully defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about the intended workflow among sibling audit tools. This leaves the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Ingest one host-mediated worker report into an audit runDir.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| output | No | ||
| report | No | ||
| runDir | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| taskId | No | ||
| attempt | No | ||
| workerId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no details on side effects, idempotency, required state (e.g., does runDir need to exist?), or what happens on conflict. The term 'host-mediated' is undefined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise (one sentence) but omits essential information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. Missing required fields, examples, return behavior, and error cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and description does not explain any parameter's meaning or format. Agent must guess from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Ingest one host-mediated worker report into an audit runDir,' which identifies the verb and resources but uses jargon ('host-mediated worker report') and does not distinguish from sibling tools like audit.collect or audit.prepare.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 such as audit.collect or audit.run. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Prepare a host-mediated audit runDir with TaskCards, prompts, manifest, and report dropbox.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | ||
| tasks | No | ||
| runDir | No | ||
| dispatchMode | No | ||
| failureThreshold | No | ||
| maxFindingsPerTask | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions creating a 'runDir' with artifacts, but does not state if the operation is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing directories), what permissions are required, or whether it modifies external state. The return value is also unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 13 words, making it concise but lacking structure. It does not front-load critical information nor use bullet points or sections. While brevity is positive, it sacrifices clarity and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, input usage, output, or side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the tool description provides no information about any parameter (model, tasks, runDir, dispatchMode, failureThreshold, maxFindingsPerTask). The agent has no guidance on how to set these parameters beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Prepare' and the resource 'audit runDir', listing specific artifacts (TaskCards, prompts, manifest, report dropbox). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like audit.run by implying a preparatory step. However, the term 'host-mediated' may be unclear, and the description lacks explicit distinction from other audit-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 (e.g., audit.run, audit.collect). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or any conditions that would indicate appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run a TaskCard/runDir/collector/EvidenceBundle audit pipeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | ||
| tasks | No | ||
| runDir | No | ||
| maxTasks | No | ||
| maxWaitMs | No | ||
| staggerMs | No | ||
| concurrency | No | ||
| failureThreshold | No | ||
| maxFindingsPerTask | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'run', implying mutation but not confirming it. No details on side effects, permissions, errors, or state changes are given, leaving the agent uninformed about 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient, but it omits essential information that would be needed for the agent, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is drastically incomplete. The agent lacks guidance on parameter semantics, pipeline behavior, and expected outcomes, making the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 mention any of the 9 parameters. Parameter names like 'model', 'tasks', 'runDir' are self-explanatory to some extent, but without any explanation of their roles or dependencies, the agent cannot use them correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs an audit pipeline involving TaskCard, runDir, collector, and EvidenceBundle, distinguishing it from sibling audit tools like collect or prepare which are more specific. However, it lacks specifics on what 'run' exactly produces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 (e.g., audit.collect, audit.prepare) or when not to use it. The agent receives no context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Apply exact text replacements and run syntax check for JS-like files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| newText | No | ||
| oldText | No | ||
| expectedReplacements | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a syntax check but does not clarify what happens on failure (e.g., does it abort, rollback?), whether the operation is destructive, or any side effects. Lacks detail on error handling and permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the verb and resource. However, it could be structured to briefly explain parameters. No wasted words, but could be more informative within the same length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, error cases, or how the syntax check integrates with replacements. An agent would lack key details for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain parameters beyond hinting at oldText/newText. The expectedReplacements parameter is undefined, and path format is omitted. Does not compensate for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool applies exact text replacements and runs syntax checks for JS-like files. It uses a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('text replacements'), which distinguishes it from siblings like file.write (write entire files) and code.review (review code).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for JS-like files but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., file.write or code.review). No when-not statements or alternative names are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run a structured heuristic code review over a file or directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| maxFiles | No | ||
| maxFindings | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without any annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies files, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The phrase 'structured heuristic code review' is too vague for an agent to infer expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at one sentence, but this brevity comes at the expense of necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core action, yet lacks supporting information that would justify its length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the review process, output format, or limitations. It is insufficient for an agent to reliably use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 parameter meanings. The three parameters (path, maxFiles, maxFindings) are left completely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess their purpose and constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs a 'structured heuristic code review' over a 'file or directory', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like code.patch and validate.check, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool might be inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Execute a local shell command.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | ||
| command | No | ||
| timeoutMs | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'local', missing critical details like blocking nature, side effects on filesystem, security permissions needed, and limits. This is insufficient for a powerful shell execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence is very short, but for a tool with significant implications, it is under-specified. The definition lacks essential details, making it not appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and minimal description, the tool definition is severely incomplete. An agent lacks information on return values, errors, security, and proper usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 three parameters (cwd, command, timeoutMs). Without parameter semantics, the agent cannot correctly construct invocations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'execute' and resource 'local shell command', distinguishing it as a command execution tool among siblings like agent.spawn. However, it is very brief and could be more specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 like agent.spawn for background processes or file.write for scripts. The description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Copy a file or directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dest | No | ||
| source | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose overwrite behavior, recursion for directories, permissions, or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter documentation, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand behavior, return format, or edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the 'source' and 'dest' parameters beyond their names. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool copies a file or directory, distinguishing it from siblings like file.move and file.read. However, it does not specify copy behavior like overwrite or recursion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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, such as file.move for moving or file.write for creating new content. There are no exclusions or context cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Move a file or directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dest | No | ||
| source | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and description does not disclose key behaviors like overwrite policy, permissions, or recursion; leaves agent uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but too brief to be useful; sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema or annotations, and description fails to specify behavior or return; incomplete for a 2-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description offers no explanation of dest or source parameters, leaving their format and semantics undefined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool moves a file or directory, distinguishing it from siblings like file.copy and file.write.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like file.copy or fs commands; lacks context for agent decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read a file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and the description provides no behavioral details such as safety, authentication needs, error handling, or return value specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief, the description is under-specified and lacks necessary detail, making it insufficient rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description does not explain what reading a file returns (e.g., content, stream) or any other critical details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 mention the 'path' parameter, adding no meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Read a file.' clearly specifies the verb (read) and resource (file), and distinguishes from sibling tools like file.write and file.copy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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, no prerequisites, or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Write a file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| content | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, directory creation, overwrite behavior, or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but at the cost of critical missing information. While front-loaded, the content is insufficient to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool performs a write operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. Missing details on behavior, return value, and error cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description adds no information about path format, content encoding, or constraints beyond the basic schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states verb 'Write' and resource 'file', but lacks detail on whether it creates, overwrites, or appends. It distinguishes from siblings only minimally.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like file.copy or file.move. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List files matching a glob-like pattern.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | ||
| pattern | No | ||
| maxResults | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning read-only nature, permissions, recursion behavior, or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity sacrifices essential detail. It is acceptably concise but lacks structure that would aid comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or glob pattern details, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain the three parameters (root, pattern, maxResults). The term 'glob-like pattern' gives minimal hint, but semantics like default paths, pattern syntax, and result limits are absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List files matching a glob-like pattern', identifying the tool's verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like fs.list or fs.grep, which are similarly file-related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 like fs.list or fs.grep. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search file contents under a root using the local worker pool for large trees.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | ||
| pattern | No | ||
| maxFiles | No | ||
| maxResults | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It hints at parallelism with 'local worker pool' but lacks details on permissions, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The behavioral model is incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is front-loaded but too brief. It does not earn its place by providing sufficient detail; it sacrifices necessary information for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, 4 undocumented parameters, and a search tool with many siblings, the description is grossly incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, output format, usage context, and behavioral guarantees, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (root, pattern, maxFiles, maxResults). The agent has no clue what these parameters mean or how to use them, adding zero value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Search file contents under a root', clearly indicating the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fs.glob (which searches file names) or file.read (which reads entire files), missing specificity about content searching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'for large trees', implying optimization for large directory structures, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., file.read for small files, search.fetch for web). No when-not-to-use or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List a directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose key behavioral traits such as recursion behavior, output format, or whether it is a read-only operation. The agent must guess these details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At 3 words, the description is extremely concise but under-specified. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it less useful for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return value, recursion behavior, or any nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description implicitly ties the 'path' parameter to the directory to list, but schema coverage is 0%. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema (e.g., path format, allowed values, or behavior when missing).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List a directory' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (directory), but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like fs.glob or file.read, which might also list files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 (e.g., fs.glob for pattern matching). The description does not mention use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Alias of memory.search for Agent clients that use recall wording.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | ||
| topK | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| backend | No | ||
| maxFiles | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only, destructive potential, or required permissions. The alias nature implies it behaves identically to memory.search, but no details are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, which is good for conciseness. However, it is too minimal to provide value beyond identifying the tool as an alias. It could be considered under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. An agent cannot determine how to properly invoke this tool or what it returns. The alias declaration alone is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter schema has 0% coverage and the description adds absolutely no information about the five parameters. The agent has no semantic guidance for using parameters like root, topK, query, backend, or maxFiles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is an alias for memory.search, which indicates the purpose of memory recall/search. However, it does not explain what memory.search does, so the purpose is somewhat reliant on understanding the sibling tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions it is for Agent clients that use 'recall wording', but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus memory.search or other siblings. No when-not-to-use or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search memory through an external service, then local text files as fallback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | ||
| topK | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| backend | No | ||
| maxFiles | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the fallback search strategy but omits other behavioral traits such as read-only nature, network requirements, or error handling. The description is partially transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 13-word sentence, zero waste, and front-loads the key behavior. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 undocumented parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a non-trivial fallback mechanism, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain input semantics or output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the 5 parameters (root, topK, query, backend, maxFiles), adding no value for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'search' is clear, and the resource 'memory' is specified, though 'memory' could be more precisely defined. It distinguishes the fallback behavior from sibling tools like memory.recall, but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a usage context (external service first, then local files fallback), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like memory.recall or search.web, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch an HTTP/HTTPS URL as text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions fetching 'as text' but does not disclose important behaviors such as redirect handling, timeout limits, error responses, or whether the tool follows best practices like setting user-agent. Minimal behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—one sentence that gets straight to the point. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail. Still, every word earns its place; no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's network I/O nature and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention failure modes, response handling, or any limitations. For a tool that fetches external resources, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'url' with 0% description coverage. The description adds the constraint that it must be an HTTP/HTTPS URL, which provides some additional meaning beyond the schema. However, no further details (e.g., query parameters, headers, or formatting) are given, so the addition is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Fetch) and the resource (HTTP/HTTPS URL) and the output format (as text). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like search.web, which likely involves searching the web rather than fetching a specific URL.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 any conditions or prerequisites. The description simply states what the tool does without context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search the web via configured Exa, Tavily, DuckDuckGo, or direct HTTP fallback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| maxResults | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions multiple backends but does not explain default behavior, fallback logic, or response format. Critical details like destructive potential or auth needs are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, given the complexity, slightly more detail could be added without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with multiple backends, 2 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output format, error handling, and parameter constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 parameters beyond their names. 'query' is implicit but 'maxResults' is not defined, nor is there guidance on how backends are selected or configured.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches the web and lists specific backends (Exa, Tavily, DuckDuckGo, HTTP fallback), differentiating it from sibling tools like search.fetch or memory.search. However, it does not explicitly contrast with these siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not specify context, prerequisites, or limitations such as rate limits or authentication requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run a lightweight syntax/config check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only mentions 'lightweight', implying speed or thoroughness, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error behavior, or return format. Essential behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it is too brief and lacks structure; it does not include a parameter description, usage notes, or result explanation. It is concise but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the check entails, what output to expect, or how to use the parameter. The agent needs more context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single parameter ('path') with no description and allows additional properties. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention or clarify the parameter's purpose, format, or constraints. The description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('run') and the resource ('lightweight syntax/config check'). The verb 'run' and the term 'syntax/config check' provide a basic understanding, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like validate.diff or validate.load.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this check is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return git diff for a cwd/path when git is available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | ||
| path | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It only discloses a precondition (git availability) but does not explain behavior when git is unavailable, side effects (none expected), or other traits like rate limits or auth. Minimal transparency beyond basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the core purpose, but it could provide more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and sparse annotations, the description leaves many unknowns: format of the diff, behavior without git, parameter usage details, and limitations. Inadequate for an agent to use reliably without assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The mention of 'cwd/path' hints at the two parameters but does not explain their exact meaning, whether they are optional, or the effect of additionalProperties: true. Lacks sufficient detail for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a git diff for a cwd/path when git is available. It uses specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource (git diff) and scope (cwd/path). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like validate.check or worker.diff by specifying git diff.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a git diff is needed and git is available, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like worker.diff or code.patch. No exclusion conditions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Load JSON or JS modules and return a structured summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as file reading, potential errors, or side effects. It only states the action and output type, which is insufficient for a tool that likely reads external resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It includes the essential verb and target, but could benefit from additional detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or document loading behavior, which are essential for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter details in the description, the agent has no information about the 'path' parameter beyond its type. The description does not specify expected format, constraints, or examples, leaving the parameter effectively undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool loads JSON or JS modules and returns a structured summary. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate.check or validate.diff, though it could be more explicit about the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Analyze files in parallel for size, extension, line, TODO, and FIXME summaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | ||
| maxFiles | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions parallelism but lacks details on whether the tool is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has limitations. The output summaries are listed but not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but sacrifices necessary detail. It earns its place by stating the tool's purpose but could be expanded without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without annotations, output schema, or parameter explanations, the description leaves significant gaps. The agent cannot infer inputs, exact outputs, or behavioral constraints, making it incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the parameters 'root' or 'maxFiles'. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which itself lacks descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the tool analyzes files for size, extension, line, TODO, and FIXME summaries, which is a clear verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like worker.diff and worker.status, though it does not specify file scope (e.g., local vs remote).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Parallel file or directory diff by sha256, size, and existence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| left | No | ||
| right | No | ||
| maxFiles | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions parallel execution and the criteria (sha256, size, existence), implying a read-only comparison. However, without annotations, there is no explicit statement about destructiveness, side effects, or performance characteristics, leaving some uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose with no superfluous words. It is optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the brief description leaves significant gaps: no explanation of return format, parameter usage, or how the tool differs from similar siblings like validate.diff. More context is needed for reliable agentic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three parameters (left, right, maxFiles) with zero description coverage. The description does not explain these parameters or map them to the mentioned sha256/size/existence criteria, forcing an agent to guess their meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs a diff of files/directories using sha256, size, and existence. The verb 'diff' and resource are specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like validate.diff, which may 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.
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 like validate.diff or file.read. An agent would need to infer usage context from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return local workpack, worker-pool, and sidecar status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states what the tool returns ('local workpack, worker-pool, and sidecar status') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or response format. Without annotations, the description should provide more transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, extremely concise, and front-loaded with the purpose. No unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple status retrieval tool without parameters or output schema, but it lacks any additional context such as when to expect errors or the format of the return value. There is room to add more completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and the specific resources: 'local workpack, worker-pool, and sidecar status'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'worker.analyze' and 'worker.diff' by specifying that it returns status rather than performing analysis or diff.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts where it is appropriate, or situations to avoid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.6agent.pipelineagent.spawnaudit.collectaudit.ingest_reportaudit.prepareaudit.runcode.patchcode.reviewcommand.execfile.copyfile.movefile.readfile.writefs.globfs.grepfs.listmemory.recallmemory.searchsearch.fetchsearch.webvalidate.checkvalidate.diffvalidate.loadworker.analyzeworker.diffworker.statusAll tools are clearly grouped by category (agent, audit, code, etc.) with distinct action verbs within each group. No two tools have overlapping purposes, and even the alias memory.recall is explicitly noted. An agent would easily distinguish them.
Every tool follows a consistent <category>.<action> pattern using lowercase and dots. All actions are descriptive verbs, and no naming conventions are mixed. The pattern is predictable across the entire set.
With 26 tools covering 10 categories, the set is comprehensive but slightly above the typical well-scoped range (3-15). However, each tool serves a clear purpose within its domain, and the count is justified for a 'universal' workpack.
The tool surface covers a broad range of operations (file I/O, code review, web search, auditing, etc.). Minor gaps exist, such as missing file deletion/creation and memory storage operations, but core workflows are well-represented and agents can work around the gaps.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Cross-agent artifact workspace with provenance across Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, LangGraph.
Shared control plane for AI coding agents — tasks, memory, decisions, file locks. 12 tools.
Project memory, semantic code search, and grounded agent context.
Persistent memory and knowledge management for AI agents with semantic search and 50+ tools.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/haoyun18881-beep/universal-brute-workpack'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
