Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
colmena-mcp

colmena-mcp

by jdsalasca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

run_many

Launch multiple worker agents in parallel, queue tasks beyond the concurrency limit, and run independent coding jobs concurrently.

Instructions

Lanza varios agentes en paralelo (tope COLMENA_MAX_PARALLEL simultáneos, el resto en cola).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tasks": "<tasks>"
    },
    "name": "run_many"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tasksYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does 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 one genuinely useful behavioral trait — simultaneous execution capped at COLMENA_MAX_PARALLEL with overflow queued — but says nothing about whether the call blocks, what it returns (job ids?), or how partial failures are reported.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence with zero waste; the parallelism behavior and the queueing constraint are both front-loaded. Nothing needs trimming.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For an orchestrator that spawns up to 20 nested agent tasks, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits return values, blocking behavior, failure semantics, and any pointer to the status/result/merge siblings needed to follow up on launched jobs.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is reported at 0% for the top-level 'tasks' parameter, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all: it does not mention the array shape, the 1-20 item bounds, or the nested task/isolation/worker fields. The nested schema properties are individually documented, but the description itself compensates for none of the gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: it launches several agents in parallel. The phrase 'varios ... en paralelo' implicitly contrasts with the singular sibling 'run', so an agent can distinguish batch from single-agent execution without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied — batch execution is for multiple independent tasks — but the description never names the alternative ('run' for a single agent) or states when to prefer one over the other. No prerequisites 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools