You build a swarm. Or a crew. Maybe it's just three agents in a loop designed to handle customer support tickets or scrape data and summarize it.
You hand them some tools, define their backstories, and hit run. Everything looks great for five minutes. Then the loops get stuck. One agent keeps trying to fix something another agent already fixed. Tokens vanish into a black hole of redundant reasoning. Two agents end up fighting over the same toolset while leaving another critical task untouched.
If you've worked with frameworks like CrewAI, you know this feeling. It's not usually a logic error in the LLM; it's an architectural collision in your design. You’ve accidentally built two specialists that are actually doing the exact same job, or worse, you've given two competing entities identical goal sets and expected them to act independently.
When designing multi-agent systems, we focus heavily on the individual persona—the prompt engineering part. We spend hours tweaking the backstory so 'Agent A' feels more professional or 'Agent B' acts more analytical. But we rarely audit the intersection of those identities mathematically.
We treat agentic roles as qualitative descriptions when they should be treated as quantitative constraints.
The problem is hard to spot visually once the system scales beyond two agents. In a team of ten, finding out that 'ResearchBot_Alpha' and 'DataGatherer_Beta' both have a 90% overlap in their intended utility requires manual inspection that nobody has time for during a sprint.
I wanted to stop guessing if my orchestrations were efficient. That’s why I looked into building/using an Agent Role Conflict Detector.
How it works under the hood
It doesn't use magic heuristics or heavy LLM reasoning to judge other agents (which would just add more noise). Instead, it uses deterministic set math. Specifically, it calculates Jaccard similarity across three key vectors:
- Agent Goals: What are they actually trying to achieve?
- Toolsets: Which functions do they have permission to call?
- Backstories: Their specialized context and identity.
A score tells you how much these domains bleed into each other. By default, if the similarity crosses 0.6, you have a conflict area worth investigating.
Using the toolkit
The MCP exposes three primary ways to interact with your architecture:
1. Analyzing the whole squad (analyze_agent_team)
A full scan of everything currently active in your orchestration layer. This gives you the big picture: who is redundant and where your configuration is bloated.
2. Spotting twins (check_agent_pair_conflict)
You suspect two specific agents might be stepping on each other's toes? Run this against them specifically to see their overlap scores for goals versus tool usage.
\ lack of distinction here often results in massive token waste because both agents execute similar chain-of-thought paths for identical outcomes.
3. Finding tool bloat (get_tool_redundancy_map)
You might think your agents are distinct, but maybe they all have access to web_search, sql_executor, and file_writer. This tool maps which specific resources are causing the highest degree of overlap across your fleet.
The resolution suggestion provided isn't always sophisticated—it won't rewrite your prompts—but it will tell you truth: "Merge these agents". Sometimes simplicity wins over complex multi-agent choreography every single time.
The reality is that as we move toward autonomous swarms, our jobs shift from writing code to managing organizational structures made of silicon instead of humans. And just like human organizations, if you don't clearly define boundaries and competencies, things break.
MCPs are the music of AI Agents. We built the catalog. Discover Vinkius MCP Catalog.
