Skip to main content
Glama

ComOS Federation

by io.github.ronrey

federation_catalog_agents

Read-onlyIdempotent

Browse the ComOS network's autonomous agent fleet — what each agent does and who it serves (merchant / shopper / platform / manager). Omit args for the fleet grouped by who-it-serves and by platform; pass serves= or platform= to filter; agent= for one agent's full card. Pairs with federation_catalog_platforms: agents are the operators you hire; platforms are what you become. Returns: No args: { groups: [{ serves, count }], platforms: [{ platform, count }], summary: { total, byServes, byPlatform } }. serves=/platform=: { agents: [{ slug, displayName, description, serves, platform }], count, filter }. agent=: { agent: { slug, displayName, description, serves, platform, repo } }. Example: call federation_catalog_agents with arguments {}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentNoA single agent's full card, by slug (e.g. agent="tax-maintainer").
servesNoFilter by beneficiary — who the agent serves. Omit for the whole fleet.
platformNoFilter to one platform's agents. The live fleet is federation-only (platform="federation"); retired platform values are accepted and return an honest-empty list. Omit for the whole fleet.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / agent / maxLength
      Added value: +4000
    • addedInput schema / properties / platform / maxLength
      Added value: +4000
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing per-mode output shapes (groups/platforms/summary vs agents vs full card with repo), and notes that deprecated platforms return an empty list ('honest-empty'). This is useful behavioral detail beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage, tight sentences, no fluff. Each clause carries information. It's a bit dense with the output-shape specifications, but those replace the missing output schema, so they're justified. Slight over-verbosity in the output format listing but acceptable.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the return shapes for each call mode (no args, serves/platform filter, agent slug). It also provides a concrete example call. Given the tool's 3-parameter surface, zero required params, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete.

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

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers all three parameters well (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful framing: it maps each parameter to its output modeholand explains omission semantics ('Omit for the whole fleet') and the filter interplay with serves/platform. It also contrasts agents vs platforms conceptually, deepening parameter understanding. That pushes it to a 4.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Browse the ComOS network's autonomous agent fleet — what each agent does and who it serves.' It explicitly lists the beneficiary taxonomy (merchant/shopper/platform/manager) and names its sibling companion (federation_catalog_platforms) with a crisp conceptual contrast ('agents are the operators you hire; platforms are what you become'), so it clearly differentiates from related catalog tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly explains when to use which invocation mode: 'Omit args for the fleet grouped by who-it-serves and by platform; pass serves= or platform= to filter; agent=<slug> for one agent's full card.' It also names the alternative (federation_catalog_platforms) and states the distinction, which is ideal usage guidance.

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

All ComOS Federation 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by clear domain prefixes (federation_*, introspection_*, moltbook_*) with each targeting a distinct resource+action (bond_post/release/status, key_challenge/bind/status, journal_append/read). The primary near-overlap — catalog_search_multi vs catalog_search_grouped_multi — is explicitly disambiguated in descriptions. Minor confusion risk exists among the four knowledge tools (federation_help, federation_why, about_us_about, how_to_about) but their purposes (how/why/manual/walkthrough) are distinct enough.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant `federation_<verb>_<noun>` pattern (create_tenant, list_agents, bond_release) is strong, but it's mixed with bare-noun tools (federation_arena, federation_offer, federation_solvency, federation_pricesheet, federation_help) and noun-noun variants (federation_manager_tree, federation_tenant_info). Non-federation tools use a loose `<domain>_<verb>` or single-token convention (legal_get, web_research, about_us_about). Readable overall, but conventions are noticeably mixed across the surface.

Tool Count2/5

At 72 tools this crosses the 50+ threshold for an extreme count. While the federation's scope is genuinely broad (manager lifecycle, tenants, catalog, agents, bonds, keys, journal, canon, introspection, social, email, research), the surface is bloated — roughly 15 bare introspection tools (list_nodes, probe, confidence, diff, coverage_gaps, co_decisions, climb_history, change_graph, change_reach, corpus_*) cover meta-self-knowledge that could plausibly collapse into fewer verbs. Agents would face a very large selection space.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is exhaustively complete for the federation domain: applicant and operator sides of admittance, full manager lifecycle (create/list/freeze/attest/bond/key), full tenant lifecycle (create/list/info/update/suspend/delete/enter), catalog discovery with change-detection, pricing, solvency, latency, journaling, governance, legal, and even external outreach (email/moltbook/research). No dead ends exist — every write has a corresponding read/status path, and branched platform tools are intentionally deferred behind enter_tenant rather than omitted.

Resources