Skip to main content
Glama
rotifer-protocol

@rotifer/mcp-server

by rotifer-protocol
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

agent_run

Execute a local Rotifer agent by name via the CLI and return its stdout/stderr; use it to run saved .rotifer/agents workflows with optional JSON input and verbose step output.

Instructions

Run a local Agent by name. Executes via the Rotifer CLI (rotifer agent run ). The Agent must exist in .rotifer/agents/. Returns stdout/stderr from the execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputNoInput data to pass to the agent (JSON string)
verboseNoShow intermediate results for each gene step
agent_nameYesAgent name (as given during create_agent)
no_sandboxNoForce Node.js execution, skip WASM sandbox. Refused unless the server was launched with --allow=no-sandbox.
project_rootNoProject root path

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.19.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the CLI invocation mechanism, the required agent location, and that stdout/stderr are returned, but it omits execution side effects, permission requirements, timeout behavior, and sandbox implications.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by execution details and return behavior. No sentence is wasted.

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?

The description is adequate for basic invocation: it names the required artifact, execution path, and returned streams. With no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about failure modes, sandbox behavior, and expected side effects.

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 five parameters. The description clarifies the required agent_name and return streams but adds no semantics for input, verbose, no_sandbox, or project_root beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: run a local Agent by name. It names the execution mechanism, CLI command, and the required on-disk location, distinguishing it from gene-oriented siblings like run_gene.

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?

Provides clear context and a prerequisite: the Agent must exist in .rotifer/agents/. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus run_gene or test_gene.

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