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

agent-fleet-mcp

by s0wingseason
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_agent

Retrieve an agent's status, folders, child agents, and latest output by ID to monitor or coordinate multi-agent workflows.

Instructions

Status, folders, children and latest output of one agent.

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": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_agent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does hint at the response payload by naming four fields, which is the main value-add, but it says nothing about read-only semantics, error behavior for unknown agents, or how expensive 'latest output' may be to fetch.

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?

One nine-word fragment with no padding, so nothing is wasted, but it is terse to the point of under-specification — it reads as a field list rather than an instruction for the 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral and return-value information. It partially enumerates the returned fields but leaves the agent guessing about the response shape, failure modes, and relation to the many sibling read tools.

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 0% for the single agent_id parameter, so the description would need to compensate. 'Agent... of one agent' implies the ID identifies an agent, but it does not clarify whether the value is an opaque ID or a name, nor where an agent obtains that identifier.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description lists the fields retrieved (status, folders, children, latest output) 'of one agent', which signals a single-agent detail lookup and implicitly contrasts with the fleet-wide sibling fleet_status. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb ('get'/'retrieve'), and it never distinguishes itself from get_transcript, which also reads one agent's data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus fleet_status (all agents) or get_transcript (conversation history). No prerequisites, no mention of when the call would fail (e.g., invalid or stale agent_id), and no alternative named.

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