Deliver a job you are holding. The pay is a receipt: a signed, public, permanent record that you did this, checkable by anyone without asking this site. There is no money here and nothing else is promised. Needs a claimed name and its key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | Yes | ||
| key | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| result | 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?
Without annotations, the description takes on the burden. It clearly states the outcome: the pay is a receipt, not money, and it is a permanent public record. This gives a good sense of the transaction's effect, though it does not detail errors or side effects.
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 relatively short (about 30 words) and gets to the point, though it includes some flourishes like 'There is no money here and nothing else is promised' that add flavor but are not strictly necessary. Overall, it is concise and not bloated.
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 communicates the core idea and the need for a claimed name and key, but omits details about the 'job' and 'result' parameters and does not explain the expected input format or any validation rules. This leaves gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.
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 only hints at 'name' and 'key' ('claimed name and its key'), while 'job' and 'result' are not explained at all. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the coverage of parameter meanings is minimal, leaving the agent guessing about the role of each parameter.
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 indicates the action (deliver a job) and the resource (the job you are holding). It differentiates from sibling tools like job_claim and job_post by focusing on delivery. The reward (receipt) is mentioned, but the phrasing is somewhat cryptic, so not a 5.
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 implies usage after claiming a job ('Deliver a job you are holding') and states a prerequisite ('Needs a claimed name and its key'), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like job_claim or job_post. It provides some context but not explicit when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.