Agent Collaboration MCP Server

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v3.4.2
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes: screen capture, agent status, parallel status, parallel implementation, messaging, and agent starting. However, 'get_agent_status' and 'get_parallel_status' could be slightly confused as both retrieve status information, though they target different entities (agents vs. parallel sessions). The descriptions clarify this distinction, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: capture_screen, get_agent_status, get_parallel_status, parallel_implement, send_message, and start_agent. The verbs are clear and appropriate (e.g., 'capture', 'get', 'parallel_implement', 'send', 'start'), with no deviations or mixed conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the count is well-scoped for an agent collaboration server. Each tool serves a specific role in managing agents, parallel sessions, and tmux interactions, and none appear redundant or unnecessary. This is a typical range (3-15 tools) that supports the server's purpose without being overwhelming.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers core operations like starting agents, checking status, sending messages, and screen capture, but has notable gaps. For example, there are no tools to stop or manage agents beyond starting them (e.g., stop_agent, restart_agent), and parallel sessions lack update or termination capabilities. This may cause agents to work around limitations, but basic workflows are supported.
Average 2.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'multiple workers' which hints at concurrency, but doesn't explain what happens during implementation, whether this is a long-running process, what resources it consumes, how failures are handled, or what the expected output format might be. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just 7 words. While this is efficient, it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness. Every word earns its place, but more context would be helpful. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, though it lacks supporting details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'parallel implementation' means, what gets implemented, what the workers do, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool with this level of complexity and no structured behavioral hints, the description should provide more context about the tool's operation and results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, with no value added by the description text.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Start parallel implementation with multiple workers' which provides a basic verb+resource combination ('start' + 'parallel implementation'), but it's vague about what 'parallel implementation' actually means in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'start_agent' or 'get_parallel_status', leaving the specific purpose unclear beyond the general concept of initiating some parallel process.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other tools like 'start_agent' or 'send_message', or what scenarios warrant parallel implementation. The agent must infer usage context solely from the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, error conditions, or response format, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single, clear sentence. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output, and usage context, making it inadequate for the tool's complexity and the absence of structured support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the 'target' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, resulting in the baseline score of 3 for adequate but no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get status of agents' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('status of agents'), but it's vague about what 'status' entails and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_parallel_status'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's read-only or has side effects, error handling, or output format (e.g., text, image). This is inadequate for a tool that interacts with system resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of capturing screen content from a tmux target, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the capture returns (e.g., text output, file path), error conditions, or dependencies, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('target' and 'lines') with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of valid targets beyond the schema's format, making the baseline score appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('capture') and resource ('screen content from a tmux target'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_agent_status' or 'send_message', which might also involve tmux interactions, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., tmux must be running), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_agent_status' that might provide status without capturing content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states this is a 'Get status' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens when sessionId is omitted versus provided. The description is too minimal for a tool with potential behavioral complexity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'status' includes, what format results are returned in, whether it lists all sessions or just one, or how to interpret the output. For a status-checking tool with potential complexity, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'sessionId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get status') and target resource ('parallel implementation sessions'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_agent_status' or explain what distinguishes 'parallel implementation' from other types of sessions, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_agent_status' or 'parallel_implement'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or any context that would help an agent decide between this and sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions control character support but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read/write operation, what happens if the target doesn't exist, error conditions, or any side effects. For a tool that sends messages to tmux sessions, this represents significant gaps in 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with specific details about control characters. There's no wasted text, though it could potentially integrate usage context more effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of interacting with tmux sessions and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after sending the message, what success/failure looks like, or any system dependencies. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured safety/behavior annotations, more comprehensive context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning control character examples (C-c, C-l) which are already covered in the schema's message parameter description. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Send a message') and resource ('to a tmux target'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like capture_screen or get_agent_status. It provides precise functionality details including control character support, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions control characters but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over other tmux-related operations or when it should be avoided, leaving usage context implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify what happens if the target is invalid, whether starting an agent is destructive to existing processes, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool that initiates processes, this gap is significant.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Start an agent') and efficiently specifies the context ('in a specific tmux target'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of starting an agent (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, success/failure indicators, or interaction with sibling tools. For a tool with 3 parameters and potential system impacts, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the tmux target format or agent types further). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start an agent') and the resource ('in a specific tmux target'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It uses specific terminology that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_agent_status' (which checks status) or 'send_message' (which communicates). The verb 'Start' is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the tmux target must exist), when not to use it (e.g., if an agent is already running), or how it relates to siblings like 'get_agent_status' for monitoring. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Agent_Collaboration_MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nishimoto265/Agent_Collaboration_MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nishimoto265/Agent_Collaboration_MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Agent_Collaboration_MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nishimoto265/Agent_Collaboration_MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nishimoto265/Agent_Collaboration_MCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nishimoto265/Agent_Collaboration_MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server