Skip to main content
Glama
songzhifei512

multi-agent-bridge

by songzhifei512
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

bridge_stats

Aggregate per-agent task queue stats—calls, successes, failures, timeouts, retries, and average duration—to identify provider overload versus task bugs.

Instructions

Aggregate runtime stats over the task queue (mem.tasks) — per agent (callee): total calls, success (exit=0), failed, timeout, total retries, avg duration ms. Read-only aggregation of data already in memory.json (run_* / agent_invoke write retries + exit_code + timestamps). For diagnosing rate-limit (429) vs sustained overload: a high failure/timeout rate with many retries signals overload, not a task bug. No args.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

D1.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. The word 'Process' gives no indication of side effects, permissions, state changes, or failure modes.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single word cannot earn credit for efficient structure because it fails to communicate any useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a one-word description, the tool is completely underspecified. An agent cannot determine what action will be taken, what inputs are expected, or what the result will be.

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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and there is no parameter semantics burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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

Purpose1/5

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

The description is a single word, 'Process', which is a tautology of the tool name and provides no verb-resource specificity. It does not state what is processed, what action is taken, or how it differs from any of the 60+ sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description contains no context, conditions, or exclusions, leaving an agent with no basis for selecting this tool over siblings like task_fork, workflow_evolve, or run_codex.

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