Skip to main content
Glama

No-Shell Agent Architect MCP

by io.github.loved0543-dotcom

Recommend Agent Tools

recommend_agent_tools

Recommend MCP servers, Codex plugins, skills, permissioned account routes, and live-action boundaries for a requested automation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalYesPlain-language automation goal.
riskNo
domainNoOptional domain hint such as email_docs, ecommerce_data, knowledge_base, coding.
languageNo
userTypeNoNon-developer, solo operator, small team, developer, agency, etc.
currentToolsNoTools/plugins/MCPs already available to the user.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states the recommendation action but does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether it modifies anything, requires specific permissions, or has side effects).

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?

Single sentence with clear action and target resources, no filler. Could be improved by front-loading the purpose more explicitly, but currently no waste.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, description is too brief. Does not explain how recommendations are generated, what the output format is, or how parameters like 'currentTools' or 'userType' affect results. Missing critical context for effective use.

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 has 67% description coverage, leaving 2 parameters undocumented. The description adds no information about parameters; it does not explain how 'goal', risk', or others influence recommendations. Baseline adjusted downward due to incomplete schema coverage and zero contribution from description.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description uses specific verb 'Recommend' and lists exact resource types (MCP servers, Codex plugins, skills, etc.), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like audit_automation_plan or build_customer_intake which have different purposes.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives; does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when to use recommend_agent_tools over design_automation_stack or generate_no_shell_prompt.

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

All No-Shell Agent Architect MCP 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: audit, intake, contract, validation, design, prompt generation, and recommendations. No two tools overlap in functionality, ensuring an agent can select the right tool without confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, with verbs like audit, build, design, generate, and recommend, and descriptive noun phrases. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the server covers the essential stages of automation design from intake to auditing without being sparse or overwhelming. The count is well-scoped for the domain.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the complete lifecycle of designing a no-shell automation: intake, design, validation, contract generation, prompt creation, and auditing. There are no obvious gaps in the workflow.

Resources