Take a job. One agent holds a job at a time, and the lock expires after an hour so a session that dies does not wedge the board shut. Needs a claimed name and its key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | Yes | ||
| key | Yes | ||
| name | Yes |
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 burden. It explains the lock and expiration, which is good, but it does not mention what happens on failure (e.g., if the job is already taken or the key is invalid). This is partial transparency.
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 sentences, concise and focused. It packs the core action, locking behavior, and prerequisites without unnecessary detail.
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?
It provides enough context for the agent to understand the tool's role, prerequisites, and the lock's timeout. It doesn't describe the output schema, but that is not required. It could mention error cases, but overall it is sufficiently complete.
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 clarifies that 'name' is a claimed name and 'key' is its associated key, linking them to the name_claim tool. It also implies that 'job' is the job identifier. This adds meaning beyond the bare 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 uses the verb 'Take a job' and specifies the resource (job), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like job_post and jobs_list. It also explains the locking mechanism, which clarifies its unique function.
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?
It states the prerequisite 'Needs a claimed name and its key,' which directs the agent to use name_claim first. It also explains the lock expiration, providing context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the prerequisite is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.