Intent owner rejects a bid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bid_id | Yes | Bid id (bid_...) | |
| 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. It conveys the actor constraint but reveals nothing about consequences: whether rejection is reversible, what state the bid or intent transitions to, whether the bidder is notified, or whether rejecting an already-accepted bid is allowed. For a mutation tool this is a significant disclosure gap.
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 five-word sentence with zero filler; the actor constraint is front-loaded and every word carries meaning. It is structurally efficient without being a tautology like the 'Process' counterexample.
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 mutation, the description covers the core who and what, and the tool's simplicity keeps the gaps from being severe. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent is left guessing about state transitions, reversibility, and the response format, which matters for a decision-affecting action.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema itself documents bid_id with its format ('bid_...') and documents api_key thoroughly — origin, format, when to pass it, and a host-security restriction. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable because there are no uncovered gaps.
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 verb ('rejects') plus resource ('a bid') and identifies the actor ('intent owner'), making the action unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings: accept_bid is the opposite action, and withdraw_bid is bidder-initiated rather than owner-initiated. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast these siblings, so it stops short of the top score.
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 actor qualifier 'intent owner' implies when this tool applies (owner acting on an incoming bid) and that a bidder should use withdraw_bid instead. But the description gives no explicit when/when-not guidance, no named alternatives, and no preconditions about the bid or intent state required for rejection to be valid.
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.