Translate a framework-specific intent to Hive-native format. Supports LangChain, CrewAI, AutoGen, OpenAI, Anthropic, and A2A.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intent | Yes | The framework-specific intent to translate | |
| source_platform | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the list of supported frameworks, but does not elaborate on behavior such as error handling for unsupported formats or the exact structure of the Hive-native output. It adds some context but not deep behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then listing supported frameworks. There is no redundancy or filler; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and supported inputs, but it omits the 'custom' platform option, doesn't describe the output structure, and doesn't mention any prerequisites or side effects. Given that annotations already cover safety, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (only 'intent' has a description). The description restates the allowed source_platform values but notably omits the 'custom' enum option that appears in the schema. It does not clarify what 'Hive-native format' means or add syntax details beyond the schema, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Translate') and resource ('framework-specific intent'), and indicates the target format ('Hive-native'). It also lists supported frameworks, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like hivegate_execute or hivegate_bridge_trust.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when you have an intent from a supported framework to convert), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides clear context by naming the frameworks, but lacks exclusionary guidance that would warrant a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: trust mapping, transaction execution, guest registration, and intent translation. No overlap or ambiguity exists between them.
All tools share the 'hivegate_' prefix and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern. However, 'hivegate_execute' lacks an explicit object, which is a minor deviation from the other three.
Four tools is well-scoped for a bridge gateway, covering the essential operations without unnecessary bloat or redundancy.
The tool surface covers registration, trust evaluation, intent translation, and execution, forming a coherent workflow. Missing operations like transaction status or trust revocation are minor gaps that can be worked around.