Intelligent MCP tool grouping for specialized sub-agents. Exposes sub-agents as MCP tools through stdio transport.
This server defines 3 tools with critically underdeveloped schemas and descriptions. All three tools are inferred from test fixtures (tests/integration/mcp_server_test.ts) rather than directly visible in server implementation code. The tool definitions lack proper parameter type information, descriptions are minimal, and there is no evidence of actual tool implementation. The 'agent_group-*' naming violates basic naming conventions, tools should use verb_noun patterns (e.g., execute_file_operation, query_network, execute_database_query) rather than generic group names. Input schemas show only 'prompt' and optional 'context' as generic object types, with no constraints, enums, or actionable guidance. Output schemas are completely undocumented. Error handling and recovery guidance are absent.
Sub-agent for File Operations: Tools for file system operations
Sub-agent for Network Operations: Tools for network operations
Sub-agent for Database Operations: Tools for database operations
Tool definitions are inferred from test fixtures rather than visible in server implementation. No explicit tool registration found in main entry point (src/cli/main.ts).
Tool names violate verb_noun convention. 'agent_group-1', 'agent_group-2', 'agent_group-3' are generic groupings, not action-oriented names. LLMs cannot infer intent from 'agent_group' alone.
Input schemas lack proper type definitions. Parameters use generic 'object' type with minimal constraints. 'context' parameter has no required flag, cardinality, or validation rules.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | F | 25 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 30 | 1.22.0+ | v1 |
Descriptions are under 20 characters and lack actionable guidance. 'Sub-agent for File Operations: Tools for file system operations' (91 chars) is only marginally better but still lacks WHEN to use and what the agent will do.
No output schema documented. LLMs cannot plan downstream calls or extract required data when output structure is unknown.
No error handling or recovery guidance. Tools do not specify what errors are retryable, how to recover, or what the LLM should do if a call fails.
Parameter 'context' is a generic 'object' with no schema, no examples, and no validation rules. This violates constrained-input pattern and invites hallucinated payloads from LLMs.
Risk levels are declared (WRITE for agent_group-1 and -3; READ_ONLY for agent_group-2) but tool definitions do not include destructiveHint or readOnlyHint annotations required by MCP spec.