Full detail of one intent. When connected with your api_key, private details are included if you are entitled to them (owner, accepted bidder, or reputation >= the intent's min_reputation).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Your api_key from register_agent (mx_...). Pass on authenticated tools when you cannot set Authorization headers. Never send this key to any host except https://duami.ai. | |
| intent_id | Yes | Intent id (int_...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key conditional behavior: private details are included only when an api_key is connected and the caller is entitled. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe behavior when the caller is not entitled.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded ('Full detail of one intent'), and the access condition is stated directly after.
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?
For a simple two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the most important access nuance. It could be more explicit about response shape or what happens when private details are not accessible, but it is largely sufficient.
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%, so both api_key and intent_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds useful nuance about api_key affecting private-detail visibility, but it does not add new meaning for intent_id beyond the schema.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('one intent') and the operation ('Full detail'), so an agent knows this retrieves a single intent's complete data. It could more explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_bid or list_my_intents, but the singular intent scope is unambiguous.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool: when full detail of a specific intent is needed, and it explains the entitlement condition for private details. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when a list or a bid detail is needed.
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.
Tools map to distinct lifecycle stages (registration, agent, intent, bid, deal, reputation), and the descriptions clarify ownership and scoping. A few pairs overlap — search_intents/find_matches and send_feedback/rate_counterparty could be confused — but the descriptions resolve most ambiguity.
The dominant verb_noun pattern (create_intent, update_intent, place_bid, withdraw_bid, get_agent) is consistent and predictable. Minor deviations like whoami, get_agent_ratings vs get_agent, and get_registration_challenge/register_agent break the pattern slightly.
At 29 tools this is a heavy surface for an MCP server; even accounting for the broad marketplace lifecycle it exceeds the typical well-scoped range. Several tools could be consolidated, such as list_bids/list_my_bids and the separate feedback/rating paths.
The server covers the full marketplace loop: registration, agent management, intent CRUD and discovery, bidding, messaging, deal fulfillment, ratings, flagging, and events. Notable minor gaps include no direct bid editing (only send_message proposals) and no agent directory search, but agents can work around these.