AI Collaboration MCP Server

init

Initialize an agent for role-based autonomous workflow, enabling automated task execution and project planning with optional mission mode.

Instructions

Initialize agent with role-based autonomous workflow

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "agentName": "<agentName>"
    },
    "name": "init"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mission`	No	Ad-hoc mission to execute (pauses main project plan)
`agentName`	Yes	Name of the agent initializing
`autonomous`	No	Start autonomous loop immediately (default: false)
`checkInterval`	No	Seconds between checks for autonomous mode (default: 120)
`maxIterations`	No	Max iterations for autonomous mode (default: 500)
`createProjectPlan`	No	Create new project plan from requirements (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'initialize' without explaining side effects, authentication needs, or what happens to the agent. No behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks substance. It is not verbose, but it could provide more information without being wordy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description fails to explain return values, workflow effects, or how parameters like 'mission' interact. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Initialize agent with role-based autonomous workflow' uses a specific verb and resource, but lacks clarity on what 'initialize' entails. It does not distinguish from siblings like 'start_autonomous_loop' or 'create_project_plan', which are related but not contrasted.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention whether init is a prerequisite for other tools or when to use it over start_autonomous_loop.

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