Dispatch queued drone tasks to SSH-connected runners for parallel agent jobs, then monitor status and retrieve logs or artifacts.
Dispatch queued tasks to connected drones.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say whether dispatch is synchronous or async, whether it is idempotent or safe to retry, what happens to tasks with no available drone, or whether it mutates queue state—all material for a bulk dispatch 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly achieved by omitting information an agent would need.
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 state-changing fleet operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what the dispatch returns (task IDs? count?), whether it must be followed by task_status polling, or how it relates to the other eleven sibling tools.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading parameter language is present.
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?
Specific verb ('Dispatch') plus resource ('queued tasks') plus destination scope ('connected drones'), which is clear on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'run_jobs', which plausibly overlaps in meaning, so an agent cannot confidently choose between the two from the text alone.
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 statement of when to use this versus 'run_jobs', 'stage_bundle', or 'reconcile_running', and no prerequisites (e.g., whether drones must be registered first). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.