ARES agent server with multi-provider LLM support, tool calling, RAG, and MCP integration. Supports multiple database backends, vector stores, and LLM providers with agent orchestration, runtime tools, and Model Context Protocol integration.
Static source inference · medium confidence · evidence: Streamable HTTP
Current-spec patterns detected
Summary
ARES Server exposes 5 tools with reasonable naming (verb-prefixed) and basic descriptions, but lacks consistent parameter detail and output schema documentation. Naming follows verb_noun pattern (ares_list_agents, ares_run_agent, ares_get_status, ares_deploy_agent, ares_get_usage). Descriptions are present but minimalist (average ~50 chars), providing insufficient context for LLM tool selection per pattern:tool-description baseline of 194 chars. Input schemas are visible for all tools and include type information, but parameter descriptions are sparse or absent for several. No explicit output schema documentation found in source. Error handling and recovery guidance are not evident. Security-critical tool ares_deploy_agent accepts raw TOML config as string parameter with no validation guidance or warning about injection risks.
Tools (5)
ares_deploy_agentwriteauthsource verified57/100
Deploy a new agent or update an existing one from a TOML configuration
ares_get_statusread onlyauthsource verified67/100
Get the status of a running agent execution by context ID
ares_get_usageread onlyauthsource verified68/100
Get usage statistics and quota information for the authenticated tenant
Descriptions are critically short (35 - 70 chars vs. baseline 194 chars). Lack context on when to call each tool, what it returns, dependencies, or side effects. Per pattern:tool-description, LLMs cannot select tools without explicit descriptions answering WHAT, WHEN, and WHY.
ares_deploy_agent accepts raw TOML config string with no validation guidance, input sanitization hints, or error recovery patterns. Vulnerable to injection attacks; LLMs have no guardrails per pattern:secret-injection and pattern:tool-gateway.
ares_deploy_agent
Recommendations
Expand all tool descriptions to 150 - 250 chars, answering: What does this tool do? When should an LLM call it (vs. similar tools)? What does it return? Example for ares_run_agent: 'Execute an agent with a message and optional conversation context. Use this to invoke agent behavior, request information, or trigger workflows. Returns the agent response and a context_id for multi-turn conversations. Agents run synchronously; check ares_get_status() for long-running tasks.'
Document output schemas for all 5 tools. Explicitly define fields (type, description) for ares_list_agents (array of {agent_name: string, description?: string, ...}), ares_run_agent (response: string, context_id: string, status: enum, ...}, ares_get_status (status: enum, result?: string, error?: string), ares_deploy_agent (agent_id: string, status: enum, deployed_at: ISO8601), ares_get_usage (usage: {calls: int, quota: int}, period: {from: ISO8601, to: ISO8601}}). Include example JSON in comments or separate docs.
Add pagination to ares_list_agents: include optional 'limit' (1 - 100, default 20) and 'offset' (default 0) parameters; return total_count and next_offset in response. Prevents context window explosion.
Enhance ares_deploy_agent parameter descriptions: (1) Describe TOML schema or link to .toon spec; (2) List common validation errors (missing 'name' field, invalid model provider, etc.) and recovery steps; (3) Add explicit input validation guidance: 'Validate TOML syntax before calling; common errors: missing required fields [name, model_provider], invalid enums [model_type].'
Parameter descriptions are sparse or vague. 'context_id' and 'toon_config' lack sufficient detail for LLMs to construct valid calls. Per pattern:constrained-input, all parameters require descriptions stating format, constraints, and allowed values.
No error handling or recovery guidance documented. LLMs have no actionable next steps on deployment failure, agent not found, or invalid config. Per pattern:recovery-guide, errors must guide the agent on retry, user input, or alternative actions.
ares_run_agent description does not clarify if it is idempotent, synchronous, or asynchronous, and does not document expected return format. LLMs cannot determine if retries are safe or if polling is required. Per pattern:idempotent-operation.
No pagination parameters or result limits documented. If ares_list_agents returns hundreds of agents, LLMs will receive enormous responses with no guidance on how to fetch incrementally. Per pattern:paginated-result, list tools must support page/limit and return counts.
ares_list_agents
Clarify ares_run_agent idempotency: update description to state 'If called with the same context_id and message, this tool is idempotent, retries will not duplicate side effects. Use context_id to continue multi-turn conversations. If no context_id, each call starts a new conversation.' Document expected latency and whether polling via ares_get_status() is needed.
Add error handling templates to all tools. Example for ares_deploy_agent: 'If deployment fails, return structured error: {error_type: "validation_error" | "config_error" | "resource_conflict", message: string, suggestion?: string}. Suggestions might be: "Agent name already exists. Use name_override or delete existing agent." or "Model provider not available. Supported: [list]."'
Document date format constraints for ares_get_usage: update from_date and to_date descriptions to explicitly state 'ISO 8601 format (YYYY-MM-DD), e.g. "2026-03-01". Default from_date: 30 days ago; default to_date: today. Must be within last 1 year.'
Add context_id parameter description clarification to ares_run_agent: 'UUID or opaque token from a previous ares_run_agent call. If omitted, starts a new conversation. If provided, appends the message to the existing conversation context. Format: UUID v4 or system-generated token string.'
For all tools, document authentication/authorization scope requirements in descriptions. Example: 'Requires read:agents scope for authenticated tenant. If calling on behalf of another tenant, requires admin:all_tenants scope.' Per pattern:scope-declaration.
Add tool annotation hints to all descriptions. Clarify which tools are read-only (ares_list_agents, ares_get_status, ares_get_usage) vs. write (ares_run_agent could trigger workflows, ares_deploy_agent modifies state). Per pattern:tool-annotations, LLMs need to know which tools have side effects for planning.