create_agent_run
Create a persisted Algenta agent run lifecycle resource.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | ||
| tools | No | ||
| context | No | ||
| max_steps | No | ||
| start_paused | No | ||
| approval_mode | No | auto | |
| output_format | No | text |
Algenta MCP Server
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'persisted' but does not explain behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or resource limits. Missing critical context for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-informative. It does not earn its place because it lacks meaningful detail beyond the name.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to provide adequate context about the lifecycle resource, return values, or behavioral implications. Essential details are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about any of the 7 parameters. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions, making parameter selection difficult.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it creates an agent run resource, which distinguishes it from get/cancel/resume siblings. However, it uses jargon like 'Algenta agent run lifecycle resource' without clarifying what an agent run is, making the purpose somewhat unclear.
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 create_agent_run versus other agent run tools. Description does not provide context or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources or actions, but there is some overlap (e.g., run_repository_fix vs run_repository_pipeline vs simulate_repository) that could cause confusion. Overall, descriptions help differentiate.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names are primarily snake_case with a verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies (e.g., single-word verbs like 'simulate', 'tokenize', and mixed prefixes like 'preview_', 'product_'). The pattern is readable but not uniform.
Tool Count1/5
With 140 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped for typical MCP usage. This overwhelms agents and suggests poor separation of concerns, likely violating the principle of minimal tool surfaces.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities including data onboarding, simulation, decisions, repository management, and admin operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update_agent_run), but core workflows are well-supported.