Skip to main content
Glama
vibhorxpandey

Aurelius

autonomous_research_graph

Runs a multi-agent research graph that automates literature search, hypothesis testing, code execution, and verification, producing an audited research output with cryptographic proof.

Instructions

Run the multi-stage research DAG (agent swarm) instead of the linear loop.

Chains specialized agents — literature mining, a parallel hypothesis swarm, feasibility screening, experiment design/code generation, a hardened sandbox + static methodology (p-hacking/data-dredging) audit, citation verification (reusing the retraction-aware verifier), adversarial review, drafting, LaTeX, and a signed cryptographic proof-of-rigor attestation (SHA-256 content hash + signature, optional IPFS/on-chain anchoring) — logging every agent action to an audit trail and checkpointing each stage.

Requires an LLM API key with quota for the reasoning agents (OPENAI_API_KEY / ANTHROPIC_API_KEY / GOOGLE_API_KEY); citation verification and proof signing are keyless. Set enable_sandbox=True to actually execute the generated analysis code in a hardened, network-less Docker container (off by default since the code is model-written; requires Docker). check_compliance, publish_preprints, and patent_freedom remain honest placeholders. Optionally pass breakpoints (stage names) to pause for human approval.

Returns {status, session_id, checkpoint, final_state, audit_trail}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelNogpt-4o-mini-2024-07-18
topicYes
providerNo
breakpointsNo
enable_sandboxNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pipeline stages, logging/checkpointing, optional sandbox execution (and its dependency), placeholders, and breakpoints for human approval. It could be improved by mentioning error behavior or resource consumption, but for a complex tool it is fairly transparent.

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?

The description is quite long (several sentences) and front-loads the main purpose, but then lists many stages in a single sentence, making it somewhat dense. While every sentence adds value, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity. It is not optimally concise for an AI agent.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (multi-stage DAG, many parameters, optional features), the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, optional settings, placeholders, and output format. Since an output schema exists, the description's mention of the return structure adds completeness without redundancy.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'enable_sandbox' (requires Docker, off by default) and 'breakpoints' (stage names for human approval). It also implies 'topic' and 'provider' usage. However, 'model' and 'provider' are not explained further, leaving some gaps.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it 'runs the multi-stage research DAG (agent swarm) instead of the linear loop,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'autonomous_research' by contrasting DAG vs linear loop, and enumerates the stages, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for use, including prerequisites (LLM API key, optional Docker), and notes that some features are placeholders. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for simple tasks) or list alternatives beyond the linear loop, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/vibhorxpandey/Aurelius'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server