This server provides a portfolio of AI agents accessible via the A2A (Agent-to-Agent) protocol, covering LLM orchestration, authentication, observability, and infrastructure generation. A central GOSCE Portfolio Router discovers and routes requests to verified agents by capability.
Available agents:
Structured Output (structured-output-agent): Convert a prompt and field schema into validated, typed JSON using Instructor over Gemini on Vertex AI.
Traced LLM Proxy (traced-llm-proxy): Proxy Gemini completions wrapped in OpenTelemetry trace spans, returning the answer along with a trace/span ID.
Authenticated Multi-LLM Agent (authenticated-multi-llm-agent): Google OAuth-gated LLM gateway that verifies a Google ID token before running a Gemini completion.
Auth Token Service (auth-token-service): Hash passwords with bcrypt and issue/verify JWT session tokens.
LLM Orchestration Agent (llm-orchestration-agent): Run prompts through a LangChain chain over Gemini on Vertex AI, with optional LangSmith tracing.
LLM Observability & Orchestration (llm-observability-orchestration): Same as above, with added observability support.
Authenticated LLM Agent (authenticated-llm-agent): JWT-gated gateway that authenticates via bcrypt/JWT before running a LangChain Gemini completion; unauthenticated calls are rejected.
Authenticated MCP Agent (authenticated-mcp-agent): Same as above but MCP-enabled.
GOSCE Portfolio Router (gosce-portfolio-router): Routes requests to the appropriate agent based on capability, providing quality-assured brokering across the entire portfolio.
Infrastructure Stack Generation: Generate compose configurations for common backend services (Postgres, Redis, MySQL, MongoDB, Kafka, Prometheus, MinIO, RabbitMQ, Grafana, Nginx, etc.).
Generates Docker Compose stacks that include Adminer for database management alongside MySQL and Redis.
Provides authentication via Google OAuth for LLM agents, verifying Google ID tokens for secure access.
Generates Docker Compose stacks that include Grafana for monitoring and visualization alongside Postgres.
Generates Docker Compose stacks that include MinIO object storage, often combined with Redis, Postgres, or Kafka.
Generates Docker Compose stacks that include MongoDB along with Memcached and Redis.
Generates Docker Compose stacks that include MySQL, often combined with Redis and other services like Adminer or Nginx.
Generates Docker Compose stacks that include Nginx as a reverse proxy alongside MySQL and Redis.
Generates a backend stack for Observable, providing monitoring and observability tools.
Generates Docker Compose stacks that include Prometheus for monitoring, often combined with Postgres and Kafka.
Generates Docker Compose stacks that include RabbitMQ message broker alongside Redis.
Generates Docker Compose stacks that include Redis, combined with various other databases and services for caching and messaging.
A portfolio of production remote MCP + A2A agents running on getvda.ai, discovered + quality-assured by the GOSCE Portfolio Router. Each agent is capability-scoped, speaks open A2A + MCP, and is metered with Nevermined x402 micropayments (discovery is free).
Generated by GOSCE (GitHub Open-Source Combination Engine) — an automated pipeline that mines the OSS dependency graph for monetizable package combinations and deploys each as a verified agent.
Agent | Capability | Docs |
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
LLM Observability & Orchestration Agent (LangChain Community) |
| |
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
Elasticsearch + MongoDB + Redis Stack Generator (Elasticsearch/Elasticsearch) |
| |
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
LLM Orchestration Agent (Opentelemetry Instrumentation Fastapi) |
| |
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
RabbitMQ + Elasticsearch + Postgres Stack Generator (Elasticsearch/Elasticsearch) |
| |
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
Related MCP server: Stackbilt
Query the Portfolio Router for any capability — it returns the matching verified agent's endpoint, Agent Card, and a real example output from its own health probe.
Portfolio: https://getvda.ai/agents
Router: https://router.getvda.ai
JWT-gated LLM gateway: authenticate (bcrypt/JWT), then run a LangChain-on-Vertex Gemini completion. Unauthenticated calls are rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | JSON request for this capability (the same body you'd send as an A2A message). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses authentication gate (JWT, bcrypt), rejection of unauthenticated calls, and the specific LLM provider. No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Lacks details on rate limits, logging, or statefulness, but adequate for a simple gateway.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core concept, no wasted words.
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?
Minimally viable: explains authentication and basic operation, but lacks details on output format (e.g., does it return raw Gemini response? status codes?). No output schema to compensate.
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 coverage 100% for the single parameter. Description adds useful context: 'the same body you'd send as an A2A message', clarifying format beyond schema alone.
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?
Clear verb and resource: 'JWT-gated LLM gateway' immediately states what it does. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying authentication and the specific LLM backend (LangChain-on-Vertex Gemini).
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?
Implied usage: use when you need an authenticated LLM completion via JWT. No explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings like 'authenticated-mcp-agent' or 'auth-token-service'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
JWT-gated LLM gateway: authenticate (bcrypt/JWT), then run a LangChain-on-Vertex Gemini completion. Unauthenticated calls are rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | JSON request for this capability (the same body you'd send as an A2A message). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only mentions authentication and rejection of unauthenticated calls, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core functionality.
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?
Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter, but lacks details about output format, error behavior, and edge cases, especially without output schema or annotations.
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?
The single 'input' parameter is described with reference to A2A message format, adding context beyond the schema's basic description.
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?
Description clearly states tool as a JWT-gated LLM gateway that authenticates and runs a LangChain-on-Vertex Gemini completion, distinguishing it from sibling tools with different stacks or purposes.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; missing context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Google-OAuth-gated LLM gateway: verify a Google ID token, then run a Gemini (Vertex AI) completion for the verified caller.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | JSON request for this capability (the same body you'd send as an A2A message). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the high-level flow: verify token then run completion. It does not mention rate limits, idempotency, error states, or what happens on auth failure. For a tool that handles authentication and LLM calls, these are critical behavioral details missing.
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?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the purpose and key steps. It is concise without redundancy. One could argue it could be split into sentences for clarity, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded with the essential action.
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?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and a vague parameter description, the description should provide more context about expected input structure, output format, and edge cases. It does not cover what the agent should expect to receive or return, nor does it help distinguish from very similar siblings like 'authenticated-llm-agent'. The completeness is inadequate for an informed tool selection.
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?
The input schema has one parameter 'input' described as 'JSON request for this capability (the same body you'd send as an A2A message).' The description adds the context of A2A messaging but does not specify the required fields within that JSON, such as the ID token or the prompt. The parameter description is vague and relies on external knowledge of the A2A format, offering only partial semantic enrichment.
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 clearly identifies the tool as a Google-OAuth-gated LLM gateway that verifies a Google ID token and then runs a Gemini (Vertex AI) completion. This specifies both the authentication mechanism and the backend model, making the purpose specific and actionable. However, it does not explain the 'multi' in the name, and the set of siblings suggests there might be other authenticated LLM agents; lacking differentiation reduces clarity slightly.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you need an OAuth-gated gateway to run Gemini completions. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the siblings. For instance, it doesn't mention that 'authenticated-llm-agent' might be for a different LLM or that 'authenticated-mcp-agent' uses a different protocol. Usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Hash passwords with bcrypt and issue/verify JWT session tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | JSON request for this capability (the same body you'd send as an A2A message). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool performs hashing and token operations but does not clarify potential side effects (e.g., token storage, expiry), output format, or whether it is idempotent or stateful.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that covers the core functionality without redundant or irrelevant information.
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?
Given that the tool handles authentication (a sensitive domain) and has no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on expected input structure, output, error handling, and security considerations, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the sole parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that the tool deals with bcrypt and JWT, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: hashing passwords with bcrypt and issuing/verifying JWT tokens. It uses specific verbs ('hash', 'issue/verify') and identifies the resource ('passwords', 'JWT session tokens'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools which are agents and proxies.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other auth methods). The description does not specify prerequisites, preferred use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Single entry point for the GOSCE portfolio: routes orchestrators to verified agents by capability, with real example output from the router's own /selftest probes (a quality-assured broker, not a directory).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | JSON request for this capability (the same body you'd send as an A2A message). |
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. It mentions 'real example output from /selftest' and being 'quality-assured', but does not disclose key behaviors such as authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a routing tool.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds value without redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and hints at self-test output, but lacks details on return values, error responses, and prerequisites like authentication. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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 coverage is 100% and the description adds context that the input is 'the same body you'd send as an A2A message', which helps with format understanding. However, it does not provide additional details beyond what the schema already specifies, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it is a 'single entry point' that 'routes orchestrators to verified agents by capability'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it is 'a quality-assured broker, not a directory', making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description implies this is the central hub for routing, suggesting it should be used when capability-based agent selection is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusionary context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run a prompt through a LangChain (system + human) chain over Gemini on Vertex AI; optional LangSmith tracing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | JSON request for this capability (the same body you'd send as an A2A message). |
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 fails to state whether the tool is read-only or modifies state, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur. The mention of 'trace' suggests observability but is not fully transparent.
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?
The description is a single 17-word sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Despite the tool being simple (one parameter, no output schema), the description lacks information about return value, behavior, or any preconditions. It is too sparse to fully equip an agent to understand the tool's usage.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'input', which is adequately described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action: running a prompt through a specific LangChain chain on Gemini over Vertex AI, with optional LangSmith tracing. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes the tool from siblings like authenticated-llm-agent or llm-orchestration-agent by specifying the framework and provider.
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?
The description implies usage context through the mention of LangChain and Gemini, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run a prompt through a LangChain (system + human) chain over Gemini on Vertex AI; optional LangSmith tracing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | JSON request for this capability (the same body you'd send as an A2A message). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions optional LangSmith tracing but omits information about resource consumption, latency, error handling, or side effects. For an LLM orchestration tool, this is insufficient.
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?
Single sentence with clear action and technology details. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.
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?
No output schema, and the description does not explain return values or the expected format of the JSON input beyond referencing A2A message. For a tool of this complexity, more context is needed for the AI agent to use it correctly.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already explains the input. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Run a prompt' and specifies the tech stack (LangChain, Gemini, Vertex AI) with optional tracing. It distinguishes from siblings by not mentioning authentication or structured output, but does not explicitly differentiate.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like authenticated-llm-agent or structured-output-agent. No context about prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Turn a prompt + a field schema into validated, typed JSON (Instructor over Gemini 2.5 Flash on Vertex AI).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | JSON request for this capability (the same body you'd send as an A2A message). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the model and validation but fails to cover important aspects like error behavior, idempotency, or rate limits.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and technology.
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?
Given the simple single-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on the expected structure of the 'field schema' within the input or the output format.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter. The description adds context by referring to 'A2A message', but beyond that, it repeats the schema description without significant additional meaning.
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 clearly states the tool's function: turning a prompt and field schema into validated typed JSON, mentioning specific technology (Instructor over Gemini 2.5 Flash on Vertex AI). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticated-llm-agent.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. The description implies usage for structured output tasks but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Proxy Gemini (Vertex AI) completions wrapped in OpenTelemetry trace spans; returns the answer plus the trace/span id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | JSON request for this capability (the same body you'd send as an A2A message). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: proxying completions, adding OpenTelemetry tracing, and returning answer plus trace ID. However, it omits details like required authentication, side effects, or rate limits, leaving gaps.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality, return value, and a distinguishing feature (trace ID) without unnecessary words.
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?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and return value. However, it lacks details on the input format (A2A message body) and the exact structure of the output, which would be helpful for agent invocation.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's 'JSON request for this capability (the same body you'd send as an A2A message).' It clarifies the tool's role but not the parameter's internal structure.
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 clearly states the tool is a proxy for Gemini (Vertex AI) completions with tracing, specifying the verb 'Proxy' and the resource 'Gemini (Vertex AI) completions'. It also uniquely mentions returning the answer plus trace/span id, which distinguishes it from generic LLM tools.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticated-llm-agent' or 'llm-observability-orchestration', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0auth-token-serviceauthenticated-llm-agentauthenticated-mcp-agentauthenticated-multi-llm-agentgosce-portfolio-routerllm-observability-orchestrationllm-orchestration-agentstructured-output-agenttraced-llm-proxyScored across 9 tools
Two pairs of tools have identical descriptions (authenticated-llm-agent/authenticated-mcp-agent and llm-observability-orchestration/llm-orchestration-agent), making them nearly indistinguishable. Only the router, auth service, structured output, and traced proxy have clear distinct purposes.
Names use hyphens but no consistent prefix or verb-noun pattern. 'authenticated-llm-agent' vs 'authenticated-mcp-agent' are confusingly similar, and the duplicate pairs exacerbate the inconsistency.
At 9 tools, the count is reasonable for a server focused on LLM agents with authentication and tracing. However, the redundancy makes the effective set smaller, but the raw count is not problematic.
The tool set covers user authentication, LLM calls, and tracing, but has significant gaps: no simple non-authenticated LLM call, no user management, and multiple tools overlap without adding distinct capabilities. The purpose of the server is unclear.
Independent directory of agentic AI tools — search, compare & recommend via MCP. Read-only.
Structured Output MCP Agent (Instructor)
One MCP endpoint for Claude, GPT & Gemini: 100+ tools + no-code connectors + agent workers.
LLM Orchestration Agent (Mcp)
