Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hvip MCP Server

hvip MCP Server

by okx-wallet-H
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

agent_hub_dispatch

Dispatch the correct agent for a task by providing a task ID. Optionally specify a target agent, or let the system auto-assign one with the required skills.

Instructions

[L:READ] CAT:[系统] | → 请先调用 agent_catalog

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": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>"
    },
    "name": "agent_hub_dispatch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskIdYes任务编号
agentIdNo目标 Agent ID。不填则自动匹配有对应技能的 Agent

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only or destructive. The prefix '[L:READ]' might hint at read-only, but it's unclear. The description does not add behavioral context beyond the name.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely concise but at the expense of clarity. It is not front-loaded with a clear purpose and uses cryptic notation that may confuse an AI agent.

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 an enum parameter and a prerequisite, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what dispatching a task entails, the outcome, or how to interpret the taskId values. No output schema is provided.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is cryptic with '[L:READ] CAT:[系统]' and a hint to call agent_catalog first. It does not clearly state what the tool does. The verb 'dispatch' implies sending a task, but the purpose is vague.

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?

The description tells the agent to call agent_catalog first, providing a prerequisite. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain the context for its use.

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