Skip to main content
Glama

nucleus

by io.github.eidetic-works

Telemetry

nucleus_telemetry

LLM tiers, telemetry, PEFS notifications & protocol tools.

Actions: set_llm_tier - Set default LLM tier. params: {tier} get_llm_status - Get LLM tier configuration record_interaction - Record user interaction timestamp value_ratio - Get Value Ratio metric check_kill_switch - Check Kill Switch status pause_notifications - Pause PEFS notifications resume_notifications - Resume PEFS notifications record_feedback - Record notification feedback. params: {notification_type, score} mark_high_impact - Mark loop closure as high-impact check_protocol - Check protocol compliance. params: {agent_id} request_handoff - Request agent handoff. params: {to_agent, context, request, priority?, artifacts?} get_handoffs - Get pending handoffs. params: {agent_id?} agent_cost_dashboard - Get agent cost tracking dashboard dispatch_metrics - Get dispatch telemetry (per-action timing, error rates) rate_limit_status - Get dispatch rate limiter status (calls per facade, window)

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

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are present but both false (readOnly, destructive), offering no insight. The description lists actions but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. Behavioral context is minimal.

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 structured as a concise list of actions with brief explanations. It begins with a high-level summary. While efficient, it could be more compact by omitting redundant phrasing.

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?

Despite many sub-actions and an output schema, the description lacks parameter details for most actions, prerequisites, return values, and error handling. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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

Parameters2/5

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 some per-action parameters (e.g., `{tier}`) but is incomplete and lacks types, constraints, or defaults. Many actions have no parameter details.

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 covers 'LLM tiers, telemetry, PEFS notifications & protocol tools' and lists specific actions, making the purpose clear. However, it serves as a dispatcher for multiple sub-actions rather than a single focused operation, reducing clarity slightly.

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 sibling tools like nucleus_agents or nucleus_audit. The description does not specify context for invoking this tool or alternatives.

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