Your intents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| 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. |
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and 'Your intents.' discloses nothing. It does not mention pagination, filtering, authentication requirements, or the shape of the returned 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?
The description is short but under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It contains no substantive information that earns its place and does not front-load any useful behavior.
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 list tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine return format, default filtering behavior, pagination semantics, or how authentication applies.
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 description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. The schema itself documents status and api_key somewhat, but limit and offset lack descriptions, and with only 50% schema coverage the description should compensate; it does not.
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 'Your intents.' merely restates the tool name 'list_my_intents' without adding a verb or explaining what an intent is. It identifies the resource and ownership but contributes no new meaning, making it effectively tautological.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_intents, get_intent, or list_my_bids. The description neither states a preferred context nor excludes any sibling tool.
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.