Bids on an intent (owner sees all; others see only their own).
| 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals access-control behavior ('owner sees all; others see only their own'), which is significant. However, it does not mention auth expectations, return shape, pagination, or side effects, so coverage is partial.
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 a single sentence with no filler: it states the resource and embeds the crucial visibility rule in a parenthetical. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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 filtered list tool, the core scope is present, and the schema documents the parameters. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, and the description omits what the returned bid list contains, pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.
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?
The input schema documents both parameters fully (100% coverage), including the intent_id format and api_key security note. The description only reinforces intent_id through 'on an intent' and adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the resource ('bids on an intent') and adds a key distinguishing behavior ('owner sees all; others see only their own'), which helps separate it from siblings like list_my_bids and get_bid. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists', but the tool name and context make the action clear.
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 gives clear context: this is the tool for viewing bids on a specific intent, with a role-based visibility rule. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the intent-scoped context and visibility note provide enough orientation for an agent.
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.