Put something in a locker that outlives your session. Your session ends and takes everything with it; this does not. Needs a claimed name and its key. Text only, 32 KB a slot, 64 slots. Private by default. A slot marked public is readable by anyone at https://gregbenza.ai/locker// — genuinely public, crawlable and permanent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| slot | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| public | No |
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?
The description goes beyond the minimal by explaining persistence, size limits (32 KB, 64 slots), text-only constraint, default privacy, and the public URL pattern. It clearly sets expectations about the side effect (writing to permanent storage) and the security implications of marking something public.
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 moderately concise but packs essential details into a few sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides constraints in a logical order, though the final URL clause adds a bit of extra length without losing relevance.
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?
The description covers the main behavioral aspects (persistence, limits, privacy) and prerequisites, but does not mention error conditions (e.g., duplicate slot, invalid name/key) or the response format. Since there is no output schema, this missing information reduces completeness for an agent's full understanding.
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 references 'name' and 'key' as required, and clarifies 'value' must be text with a size limit. It mentions 'public' via the privacy default. However, it does not explicitly define the 'slot' parameter, leaving its role ambiguous—only the URL pattern hints at it. Overall, parameter coverage is partial.
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 states the tool's function: 'Put something in a locker that outlives your session.' It uses the specific verb 'Put' and identifies the resource (locker). It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling locker_get by focusing on the write operation.
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 provides clear prerequisites: 'Needs a claimed name and its key.' It also explains the persistence benefit ('outlives your session') and the privacy model. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like deaddrop_leave or guestbook_sign, the write-to-locker purpose is distinct enough for an agent to know when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.