Skip to main content
Glama

nucleus

by io.github.eidetic-works

Orchestration

nucleus_orchestration

Satellite view, commitments, loops, patterns & metrics.

Actions: satellite - Unified satellite view. params: {detail_level?} scan_commitments - Scan artifacts for new commitments archive_stale - Auto-archive commitments older than 30 days export - Export brain to zip list_commitments - List open commitments. params: {tier?} close_commitment - Close a commitment. params: {commitment_id, method} commitment_health - Get commitment health summary open_loops - View all open loops. params: {type_filter?, tier_filter?} add_loop - Add a new open loop. params: {description, loop_type?, priority?} weekly_challenge - Manage weekly challenge. params: {action?, challenge_id?} patterns - Manage learned patterns. params: {action?} metrics - Get coordination metrics pr_watch - Enumerate stale PRs (>N days), classify (auto-mergeable / billing-stuck / needs-verdict), fire one relay per stale PR to the integration coord. params: {threshold_days?, dry_run?}

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

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate not readOnly, not destructive, not openWorld. The description adds minimal behavioral context; it lists actions but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or limitations. Some sub-actions (e.g., archive_stale) may be destructive, conflicting with destructiveHint=false, but the description itself does not contradict annotations.

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 lengthy but organized as a list with sub-actions. The front-loaded summary is vague; the structure is functional but could be more concise and clearer for AI parsing.

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?

The tool has many sub-actions, and the description covers most but not all parameter details. Missing information like default values, enum choices, and action-specific behavior under different params. An output schema exists but does not compensate for incomplete action descriptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists actions and some parameters (e.g., detail_level, tier, commitment_id), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it is not exhaustive and lacks structure for an AI to infer all valid parameter options.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description lists many sub-actions but lacks a clear, specific verb+resource statement of what the tool does overall. 'Satellite view, commitments, loops, patterns & metrics' is vague and does not distinguish it from sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely enumerates sub-actions without explaining context or providing exclusions.

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