MCP server exposing tool surface for dispatching reconnaissance agents (Scout, Harvester, Profiler), writing outreach, and querying job status and signals. HTTP-based with JWT authentication.
Critical gaps across all dimensions. Tool definitions are inferred from file paths and brief descriptions only, no visible input schemas, parameter types, or output documentation in provided source. Descriptions are extremely terse (10-40 chars), well below the 194-char baseline for production tools. No evidence of parameter validation, error handling guidance, or schema enforcement. The 6 tools lack the structured definitions required for reliable LLM invocation.
Dispatch Harvester data collection agent
Dispatch Profiler OSINT agent
Dispatch Scout reconnaissance agent
Query job execution status
Retrieve intelligence signals
Generate outreach content
No input schemas visible for any tool. Cannot verify parameter types, constraints, or descriptions.
Tool descriptions are 10 - 40 characters (e.g., 'Dispatch Scout reconnaissance agent'). Baseline is 194 chars. Descriptions lack WHAT the tool does, WHEN to use it, and what it returns. LLMs cannot reliably select tools with such sparse documentation.
No evidence of error handling, recovery guidance, or actionable error messages. Tools marked WRITE risk data loss without confirmation or dry-run support.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 30 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
Tool names use hyphens (dispatch-scout) instead of underscores (dispatch_scout). MCP convention and LLM parsing expect underscores. Inconsistent naming increases tool selection errors.
No visible parameter documentation. Cannot verify if tools accept user-friendly identifiers (names, emails) vs opaque IDs, or if parameters have constraints (enums, ranges, formats).