hermes-conductor-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: projects, workspaces, sessions, and operations on them. No two tools appear to overlap in purpose, making selection unambiguous.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_projects, create_workspace, send_message). This creates a predictable and readable interface.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the server covers workspace lifecycle and session management without bloat. Each tool serves a clear need, and the count is well within the ideal range.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers workspace creation, status, archiving, session messaging, polling, transcripts, and cancellation. A notable gap is the lack of a list_workspaces tool to enumerate existing workspaces, but core workflows are otherwise complete.
Average 3.6/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects, whether the operation is destructive, or how session state is affected. No mention of reusability or impact on messages.
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 that clearly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the action verb.
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?
The tool is simple, but the description only covers the action. It lacks usage context, parameter details, and behavioral consequences. Given no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's impact and appropriate use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema shows one required string parameter sessionId, but the description provides no explanation or context for this parameter. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's purpose from its name alone.
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 (cancel/stop) and the target (agent's current operation in a session), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_session_status or create_workspace. However, 'operation' is somewhat vague and could be more specific about what kinds of operations are cancellable.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when one needs to stop an ongoing operation, but does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with related tools such as get_session_status or archive_workspace.
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?
The description simply says 'retrieve', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or data format. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but adds little beyond the literal action.
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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is efficient but not overly minimal; however, it omits potentially useful structural details that could make it more informative. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the transcript contains, how it is structured, or any limits such as maximum message count. While the term 'full conversation transcript' gives a general idea, it lacks the operational detail an agent would need to handle the response effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required string parameter, sessionId, with zero description coverage. The tool description mentions 'coding agent session' which indirectly suggests the parameter is a session identifier, but it does not explicitly explain how to obtain it, its format, or any special constraints. This is minimal compensation for the lack of schema documentation.
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 a specific action ('Retrieve the full conversation transcript') and identifies the resource ('coding agent session'). This is distinct from sibling tools like list_projects or get_session_status, which target different entities.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_session_status or send_message. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusionary conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.
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 must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'list repositories' and does not mention what data is returned (e.g., names, metadata), whether the list is exhaustive or paginated, or any access restrictions. This is a minimal description with no additional behavioral context.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('List repositories') and immediately provides the purpose ('available to create Conductor workspaces from'). There is no wasted text or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not explain the return format, whether results are sorted, or how the list is filtered. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 reflects that the description meets the minimum bar but leaves room for clarification about what the output contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema covers 100% by having an empty properties object. Since there are no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add parameter-level details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not conflict with the schema.
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 tool lists repositories that can be used to create Conductor workspaces, with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('repositories'). It distinguishes from siblings by being the only listing tool among the siblings, though there is slight ambiguity because the tool name is 'list_projects' while the description says 'repositories'.
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 implies the tool is a precursor to creating workspaces ('available to create Conductor workspaces from'), but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. It gives context but no formal usage guidance.
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 present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a state change but does not clarify reversibility, side effects on associated data, or required permissions. 'Archive' is ambiguous and could imply either deletion or a reversible deactivation.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and provides necessary context without waste. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It provides the core action and usage trigger but lacks important behavioral details (like whether archiving is destructive or reversible) and explicit parameter guidance, making it minimally viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explicitly mention the workspaceId parameter. While the single parameter is inferable from the tool name, the description fails to connect the parameter to the action, leaving the agent to guess that workspaceId identifies the workspace to archive.
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 a specific verb ('Archive' / 'deactivate') applied to a specific resource ('Conductor workspace') with a lifecycle context ('once its work is done'). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_workspace and get_workspace_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'once its work is done' provides a clear condition for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the lifecycle context offers enough guidance compared to 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions two side effects—creating a workspace and starting a session—but omits important traits like what 'sandboxed' entails, whether the operation is reversible, any prerequisites, or what happens to existing data or sessions. No warnings or caveats are provided.
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 two concise sentences with a first sentence that clearly states the action and a second sentence that gives essential parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the verb and resource.
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's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is under-specified. It does not mention what the response contains, how to monitor the created session, or any limitations. It touches on the key choice of projectId vs repositoryUrl but leaves the agent without a full operational picture.
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 63%, and the description adds meaning by explaining the either/or between projectId and repositoryUrl, which is helpful beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the other parameters (name, model, effort, sessionName) beyond what the schema provides, leaving some gaps.
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 uses a specific verb-phrase 'Create a new Conductor workspace' and clearly states the resource, adding 'a sandboxed coding-agent environment' for context. It distinguishes itself from the read/query siblings (list_projects, get_workspace_status) by the core action of creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear directive on when to use it—'to create a new workspace'—and provides a critical usage condition: 'Provide either projectId or repositoryUrl.' It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the context makes the tool's unique role obvious.
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. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, required session state (e.g., must be active), asynchronous behavior, or potential errors. This is a significant gap for a tool that mutates by sending a message.
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?
Two concise sentences, no waste. The action is front-loaded, and the sessionId provenance is immediately relevant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and prerequisite. However, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., session must exist, possible errors) leaves it incomplete for an agent to safely invoke without assumptions.
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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does clarify that sessionId is the one returned by create_workspace and that message is a 'prompt/instruction', adding some meaning. However, it stops short of explaining formats, constraints, or how the message is processed.
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 ('Send a prompt/instruction') and the target resource ('a coding agent session'). It also provides a critical pointer to the sessionId source, which distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_session_status or cancel_session.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context on the prerequisite: the sessionId must come from create_workspace. This implies the appropriate workflow but does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like archive_workspace.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the pollable statuses and the intended polling pattern, but it does not mention failure modes, rate limits, or implications of repeated polling. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential states and the key usage context. It does not detail polling termination or error behavior, but the description is otherwise complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the sessionId parameter at all. Although the parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, the description should have compensated for the lack of schema descriptions, e.g., by noting the sessionId should come from send_message. It does not.
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 tool polls session status with specific states (idle, working, errored). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_workspace_status by focusing on coding agent sessions and by referencing send_message as a preceding action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells when to use the tool ('after send_message to know when the agent finished'), which is clear actionable guidance. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Check' indicates a read-only operation, and listing the statuses provides additional behavioral context about what the tool returns. However, it does not disclose error behavior or what happens with invalid workspace IDs.
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 with a clear verb and supporting detail. No filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the tool's action and the list of possible statuses, which effectively describes the expected return values. It is adequate for an AI agent to select and invoke this tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description provides context by specifying it applies to a 'Conductor workspace', making workspaceId's purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly describe the parameter's format or domain beyond being a string.
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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource as 'lifecycle status of a Conductor workspace'. The parenthetical list of possible statuses further clarifies the scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_session_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to know workspace lifecycle status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. The context is clear, but lacks explicit alternative guidance.
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:

[![hermes-conductor-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rohanxdesign/hermes-conductor-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rohanxdesign/hermes-conductor-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![hermes-conductor-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rohanxdesign/hermes-conductor-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rohanxdesign/hermes-conductor-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/rohanxdesign/hermes-conductor-mcp'

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