Process prompts via hardware-adaptive routing that runs local GPU models first and falls back to Gemini, reducing token costs.
Run a query through the intelligent cascading gateway (RTX 5090 -> Gemini) with dynamic biasing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | The prompt to process. | |
| system_prompt | No | Optional system prompt. | You are an expert coding assistant. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait — that requests route local-first (RTX 5090) and then fall through to Gemini — but leaves 'intelligent'/'dynamic biasing' undefined and says nothing about fallback triggers, latency/cost tradeoffs, or data leaving the local machine.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted framing, though 'intelligent' and 'dynamic biasing' are unearned filler that consumes space without informing the 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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more about the gateway's behavior and what a caller gets back (e.g., which model answered, fallback signals). As written, an agent cannot tell what distinguishes a cascaded response from a local one.
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 100% with only two self-explanatory parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format or content guidance for 'prompt' or 'system_prompt' beyond what the schema already states.
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?
States a concrete verb and resource ('Run a query through the intelligent cascading gateway') and the parenthetical (RTX 5090 -> Gemini) clarifies that this is the multi-tier path, implicitly distinguishing it from query_local_5090. However, the phrase 'dynamic biasing' is undefined jargon, and the sibling is never named explicitly.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions under which the cascade should be preferred over query_local_5090, and no mention of when to reach for get_cascade_metrics instead. The cascade chain is implied usage at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.