Execute a single active GLM call through a private bridge with worker-scoped audit authority, enabling controlled AI work handoffs between AIWorkhub workers.
PRIVATE BRIDGE: execute one active GLM call with worker-scoped audit authority.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_name | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes | ||
| tool_input | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It vaguely mentions 'worker-scoped audit authority' and a 'private bridge,' but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, rate limits, or what an 'active GLM call' entails. This is insufficient for a tool with three required parameters and a nested input object.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and is structurally front-loaded around a colon, but the wording is heavily jargon-laden and does not earn its place by conveying clear, useful information. It is concise without being informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and a nested input object. Although an output schema exists, the description fails to explain parameter semantics, usage context, or behavioral traits, leaving the definition severely incomplete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there are three required parameters, yet the description does not mention or explain any of them. With low schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a verb and a resource ('execute one active GLM call'), but 'PRIVATE BRIDGE' and 'worker-scoped audit authority' are cryptic domain jargon that do not clearly explain what the tool actually does or how it differs from the many sibling tools. It is more specific than a tautology but still leaves the agent guessing at the core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The phrase 'one active GLM call' hints at a constraint but does not provide actionable usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.