Execute controller, router, and owner actions for multi-agent work graphs, such as approving overrides, managing delegations, publishing runtime, and maintaining schema.
Perform explicit controller/router/owner operations through the advanced capability layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | No | ||
| operation | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.16Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing. The operation enum includes clearly mutating and high-risk actions (REQUEST_OVERRIDE, MIGRATE_SCHEMA, PUBLISH_WORKER_RUNTIME) with no mention of permissions, approval flow, irreversibility, or side effects.
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?
It is a single short sentence, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than economy. The one sentence is abstraction padding ('explicit', 'advanced capability layer') and front-loads nothing actionable.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but that is the only element covered. For a 16-operation dispatcher with an opaque payload and no annotations, the description omits everything an agent needs: operation grouping, payload shape, and safety profile.
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 the description adds zero parameter guidance. The 16 enum values are opaque operation codes, and the payload is an untyped open object whose required shape almost certainly varies per operation — the description explains none of this, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid call for any operation.
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 rephrases the tool name ('control' -> 'controller/router/owner operations') without naming a concrete resource or action an agent can act on. 'Advanced capability layer' is internal jargon that carries no discriminating meaning. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like mangome_effect, mangome_work, or mangome_verify.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative sibling is mentioned despite five plausible candidates (effect, work, verify, status, query). An agent cannot infer from the text which of the 16 operations belong here versus in a neighboring tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.