MCP設定は1つだけ。150種類以上の専門エージェントをオンデマンドで利用可能。手動設定は不要です。
あなたのAIアシスタントはジェネラリストです。時には、ゲームエコノミーデザイナー、セキュリティ監査人、テクニカルライターといったスペシャリストが必要になることがあります。このMCPサーバーを使えば、150種類以上の専門エージェントテンプレートに即座にアクセスできます。必要なものを説明するだけで、適切なエージェントを見つけて生成します。
You: "Help me design a balanced game economy"
Claude: [searches -> finds Game Economy Designer -> spawns it -> expert response]テンプレートは初回実行時にagency-agentsから自動取得され、常に最新の状態に保たれます。ユーザー側での操作は一切不要です。
インストールすることも可能です。agency-agentsのインストールスクリプトは、160以上のエージェントファイルをすべてツールの設定ディレクトリ（例: ~/.claude/agents/）に直接コピーします。これは機能しますが、使用するかどうかにかかわらず、すべてのエージェントの名前と説明がすべての会話のコンテキストウィンドウに読み込まれてしまいます。
測定結果は以下の通りです：
アプローチ | コンテキストコスト | タイミング |
インストール済みエージェント ( | 約8,300トークン | すべての会話で常に |
MCPサーバー (アイドル時) | 約55トークン | すべての会話で |
MCPサーバー (検索時) | 約350トークン | 検索時のみ |
MCPサーバー (エージェント使用時) | 約2,700トークン | 生成時のみ (中央値) |
これはベースラインのコンテキスト使用量を150分の1に削減するものです。160以上のエージェントを利用できる点は同じですが、実際に使用しているエージェントの分だけコストを支払えば済みます。
インストール済みエージェント (8,300トークン): agency-agentsのインストールスクリプト (install.sh --tool claude-code) を実行し、162個のエージェントファイルを ~/.claude/agents/ にコピーしました。その後、新しいClaude Codeセッションを開いて /context を実行しました。Claude Codeは「Custom agents: 8.3k tokens」と報告し、エージェントの使用有無にかかわらずすべての会話に読み込まれました。
MCPアイドル時 (55トークン): 代わりにMCPサーバーを設定した場合、/context には2つの遅延ツール名 (agency_search, agency_browse) とシステムプロンプト内の短いサーバー説明のみが表示されます。エージェントデータは読み込まれません。
MCP検索時 (350トークン): アシスタントが ToolSearch を呼び出して agency_search および agency_browse ツールを解決する際に読み込まれる完全なJSONツールスキーマをトークン化して測定しました。測定には @anthropic-ai/tokenizer を使用しました。
MCPエージェント使用時 (2,700トークン): 145個の全エージェントファイルの中央値トークン数です。測定には @anthropic-ai/tokenizer を使用しました。実際に使用している単一のエージェントファイルのみがコンテキストに読み込まれます。エージェントによって383〜12,724トークンの範囲があります (p25: 1,549, p75: 3,584)。
Related MCP server: pantheon-mcp
プラグインとして:
/plugin marketplace add npupko/agency-mcp-server
/plugin install agency@agency-mcp-serverまたはCLI経由で:
claude mcp add agency -- npx -y agency-mcp-serverMCP設定に追加してください:
{
"mcpServers": {
"agency": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "agency-mcp-server"]
}
}
}以上です。初回起動時にテンプレートが ~/.cache/agency-mcp-server/ にクローンされ、24時間ごとに更新が取得されます。
アシスタントに以下のように尋ねてください:
"ゲームエコノミーデザイナーのエージェントを探して"
agency_search ツールからの結果が表示されるはずです。初回実行時はテンプレートの自動ダウンロードが行われます（約30秒）。
アシスタントは4つのツールを利用できます:
agency_search(query, division?) -- タスクを説明し、生成手順を含む一致するエージェントを取得します
agency_browse(division?) -- 利用可能な
Browse all agent divisions and their agents. Explore the agent registry when you want to see what's available. Use agency_search instead if you already know what kind of agent you need. Call with no arguments to see all divisions. Pass a division name to list its agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| division | No | Division to list agents for (omit to see all divisions) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds clarity on how to invoke different behaviors (no args vs division), but does not add novel behavioral traits beyond annotations.
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 concise, well-structured with usecase and instructions tags, and front-loaded with the primary action.
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 low complexity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description provides complete guidance on usage and alternatives, leaving no 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the division parameter. The description restates the schema's intent without adding new semantic detail, meeting the baseline.
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 'Browse all agent divisions and their agents.' It differentiates from sibling agency_search by recommending its use when knowing the agent type.
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?
Explicit instructions: 'Call with no arguments to see all divisions. Pass a division name to list its agents.' Also includes when to use agency_search instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find and launch a specialized agent for any task. Search agent templates by keyword. Returns matching agents with file paths and a spawn template. Call this before spawning any agency subagent.
Pass a task description as query (e.g. 'game mechanics', 'security audit')
Pick the best match from results
Spawn a subagent using the template at the bottom — replace with the file path and <describe the user's task> with the user's full, unabridged request
Return the subagent's response directly to the user without summarizing it
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Task or keyword to search for (e.g. 'game mechanics', 'frontend React', 'security audit') | |
| division | No | Optional: narrow to a division (e.g. 'engineering', 'game-development') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details like output format (matching agents with file paths and spawn template) and the spawning workflow. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond them.
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 well-structured with <usecase> and <instructions> tags, front-loading the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, though the instructions are detailed. It is concise for the complexity involved.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description comprehensively explains the output (matching agents with file paths and spawn template) and provides full workflow instructions. Given the tool's complexity and the annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough for an AI agent.
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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds example values for query (e.g., 'game mechanics') and division (e.g., 'engineering'), and clarifies that query should be a task description, enhancing the schema's 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 'Find and launch a specialized agent for any task' and the usecase elaborates on searching agent templates by keyword, returning file paths and spawn templates. It distinguishes from siblings (agency_browse, agency_status, agency_update) by focusing on search and spawning, not browsing, status, or updates.
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 explicitly states 'Call this before spawning any agency subagent' and provides step-by-step instructions on how to use it: pass task description, pick best match, spawn using the template, and return response directly. This gives clear when-to-use and how-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check the current status of the agent index — last update time, whether an update is available, and agent count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral details: what specific data the tool returns (last update time, update availability, agent count), which goes beyond the annotations.
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, clear sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently conveys the key 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description fully informs the agent of what the tool does and what to expect. It covers all necessary aspects 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?
There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add param meaning. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description effectively explains the output, compensating for the absence of an output 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 'check' and the resource 'agent index status', and specifies the three pieces of information returned (last update time, update availability, agent count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agency_browse or agency_search.
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 when to use (for a quick status check) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use. No guidance on context or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Pull latest agent templates from git (if applicable) and rebuild the search index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, but description adds context: pulling from git (with 'if applicable') and rebuilding the search index. This clarifies the exact side effect beyond the annotation flags.
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, no fluff. Every word adds value: specifies action, resource, and condition ('if applicable'). Efficient and front-loaded.
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 parameters, no output schema, and a simple action, the description is sufficient. It covers the essential behavior and conditionality, making it complete for an agent to understand and invoke.
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?
No parameters in schema; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info, but baseline for 0 parameters is 4. No need for additional 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?
Description clearly states the verb 'pull' and 'rebuild' on specific resources 'agent templates' and 'search index'. Distinguishes from sibling tools (browse, search, status) as an update operation.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, the idempotentHint annotation implies it can be called repeatedly without side effects, and siblings handle other tasks. Lacks explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria.
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.
v0.3.1agency_browseagency_searchagency_statusagency_updateScored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: browse lists divisions/agents, search finds agents by keyword with spawn templates, status checks index health, update refreshes the index. No overlap.
All tools follow a consistent 'agency_' + verb in snake_case pattern (browse, search, status, update), making it predictable and easy to understand.
With 4 tools, the server is slightly on the minimal side but still well-scoped for agent registry operations. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the core workflows: browsing, searching, status checking, and updating. Minor gap is the lack of a direct spawn tool, but search provides a template for spawning.
150+ vertical AI expert bots as agent tools. $1 bots run on YOUR machine - your data stays yours.
Contextual prompts and agent skills for 140+ AI platforms.
Discover, inspect and run 63,000+ agent tools from one balance. Pay per call, no subscriptions.
AI agent tools: web search, browser, 400+ LLMs, image gen, TTS, phone verify. Pay-per-use.
