Skip to main content
Glama

nucleus

by io.github.eidetic-works

Federation

nucleus_federation

Federation management for multi-brain coordination.

Actions: status - Get comprehensive federation status join - Join a federation via seed peer. params: {seed_peer} leave - Leave the federation gracefully peers - List all federation peers with details sync - Force immediate synchronization with all peers route - Route a task to the optimal brain. params: {task_id, profile?} health - Get federation health dashboard

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYes
paramsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds actions that are clearly mutating (join, leave, route) but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise and front-loaded with a domain statement, followed by a clear action list. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'Get' in two actions) could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown) and multiple sub-actions, the description covers the main actions and their purposes. However, it lacks details on the overall invocation pattern (e.g., required action field, optional params) and does not explain return values, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It partially explains parameters for 'join' (seed_peer) and 'route' (task_id, profile?), but omits params for other actions. This provides some added meaning but is incomplete.

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 states the tool is for 'Federation management for multi-brain coordination' and lists specific actions, making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it's a command dispatcher pattern, which could be more precise.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nucleus_route or nucleus_sync. The description does not specify conditions or exclusions for each action.

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

All nucleus toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by domain with detailed descriptions, but some overlap exists (e.g., multiple relay-related tools like nucleus_relay, nucleus_relay_subscribe, nucleus_next_message). Overall, most tools have distinct purposes, and descriptions help disambiguate.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the 'nucleus_' prefix with a consistent noun-like second part (e.g., nucleus_agents, nucleus_audit, nucleus_delegate). Even compound names like nucleus_lane_feedback maintain the pattern, with no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count3/5

With 28 tools, the count is on the higher end but still justifiable given the broad scope of an agent operating system. The tools cover many necessary functions, though the set could be slightly trimmed for focus.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers most aspects of an agent OS: agents, audit, delegation, memory, features, federation, governance, infra, lanes, messaging, orchestration, plans, relay, routing, sessions, slots, sync, tasks, telemetry. Minor gaps like a dedicated config tool are absent but not critical.

Resources