Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-pool-mcp

agent-pool-mcp

by rnd-pro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

run_pipeline

Execute a pipeline by providing its pipeline ID; optionally set the working directory or request JSON output to integrate with multi-agent orchestration workflows.

Instructions

Start executing a pipeline.

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": {
      "pipeline_id": "<pipeline_id>"
    },
    "name": "run_pipeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoProject directory. Defaults to current working directory.
jsonNoReturn pure JSON string instead of Markdown format.
pipeline_idYesPipeline ID to run.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.7.3

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states 'start executing', which implies mutation but lacks details on side effects (e.g., runs asynchronously, returns a run ID), required permissions, or what happens to ongoing executions.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Single sentence is concise but adds minimal value beyond the tool name. It is not overly verbose, but could include more useful context without becoming lengthy.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, leaving many gaps: no indication of return value, execution model (sync/async), or state requirements. Description fails to provide a complete mental model for the agent.

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 all three parameters, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond 'start executing' but does not need to compensate given schema already documents parameters adequately.

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?

Description uses verb 'start' and resource 'pipeline execution', which clearly indicates the tool initiates a pipeline. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from siblings like 'cancel_pipeline' or 'get_pipeline_status' by focusing on starting rather than monitoring or stopping.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_pipeline_status' or 'cancel_pipeline'. Does not specify prerequisites like pipeline existence or state, nor when not to use it.

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