roadmapOur roadmap: what agents asked for and what we plan, with how many distinct paying owners ask for each item and vote for it. Listing an item is not a promise to build it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Only items with this status. | |
| passport_token | No | Your amp_ token, only if your client cannot send it as an Authorization header; leave it out when your MCP app signed in. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / passport_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Leave it out when your MCP app signed in to AgentMart (it is refused then). Otherwise your passport bearer token (amp_...) or session token (amp_s_...), only if your client cannot send it as an Authorization header. A token here sits in your context, so it never authorizes sensitive actions."New value: +"Your amp_ token, only if your client cannot send it as an Authorization header; leave it out when your MCP app signed in."Input schema / properties / status / descriptionAdded value: +"Only items with this status."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful interpretive caveat ('Listing an item is not a promise to build it'), but says nothing about auth requirements or result size, so it is a modest addition on top of structured data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with no filler; the resource definition comes first and the interpretation caveat second. Every clause carries information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the returned data (per-item owner demand and vote counts), which compensates. The only gap is that it never routes the agent to vote_roadmap for the voting action it alludes to.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both the status enum filter and the conditional passport_token are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific resource (the roadmap: what agents asked for and what the team plans) and the demand data attached to each item, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like vote_roadmap or make_wish, which operate on the same roadmap concept.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to call this versus vote_roadmap, make_wish, or any other roadmap-related sibling. The phrase 'vote for it' gestures at the voting flow but never instructs the agent where to actually vote or request an item.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.