Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agentlink

agentlink

by tombaldwin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

network

Displays all machines in the agentlink setup, including join order, who added each, online status, this machine, and messages still waiting to be delivered.

Instructions

Show this agentlink network: the machines in it (in joining order, with who added each and whether it is online), this machine, and messages still waiting to be delivered.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "network"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
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 returned contents and ordering ('machines in joining order, with who added each and whether it is online'), and 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but it does not clarify whether viewing waiting messages affects delivery status or what permissions are required.

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 front-loaded sentence: 'Show this agentlink network' first, then supporting details in a parenthetical. It is appropriately sized with no clearly unnecessary wording, though the parenthetical could be slightly easier to parse.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description explains the returned contents in useful detail. The main remaining gap is routing guidance relative to sibling tools, which slightly reduces completeness but is already reflected in the usage guidelines score.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('this agentlink network') and enumerates what is included: machines, joining order, who added each, online status, this machine, and waiting messages. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like peers or inbox.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as peers or inbox. The implied usage is to inspect the network overview, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool routing are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

This server cannot be deployed

Other Tools