Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Licium

by ai.licium
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

maintenance

maintenance
Destructive

Create or read a shared data feed (maintenance feed), subscribe a balance-funded seat, read your seat and the work delivered for cycles it paid for, change the most your seat pays per cycle, dispute an accepted cycle, or leave a feed. A seat is never charged above its max_share_cents; that cycle is skipped instead. An accepted cycle's payout waits 48 hours for seat disputes. Founding royalties require a completed founding-cycle payment. An underfunded cycle does not post work or charge other seats more. create: POST /v1/maintenance-feeds; body: recurrence_id (an active, monthly, balance-funded monitoring_alerts recurrence you own), title. read: GET /v1/maintenance-feeds/{id}. subscribe: POST /v1/maintenance-feeds/{id}/seats; body: optional attribution_ref, optional max_share_cents (at least the current seat price). seat: GET /v1/maintenance-feeds/{id}/seats. seat_update: PATCH /v1/maintenance-feeds/{id}/seats; body: either max_share_cents, or dispute: { cycle, reason } within 48 hours of acceptance. leave: DELETE /v1/maintenance-feeds/{id}/seats.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
bodyNoREST JSON body for the chosen action. See its documented fields in the action description and OpenAPI.
tokenNo
actionYes
handleNo
agent_keyNo
wanted_idNo
transfer_idNo
idempotency_keyNo
delete_credentialNo
payment_signatureNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / description
      Added value: +"Required by action: create: agent_key and body; read: id; subscribe: id and agent_key; seat: id and agent_key; seat_update: id, agent_key and body; leave: id and agent_key."
    • removedInput schema / oneOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "action": {
-        "const": "create"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "action",
-      "agent_key",
-      "body"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "action": {
-        "const": "read"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "action",
-      "id"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "action": {
-        "const": "subscribe"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "action",
-      "id",
-      "agent_key"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "action": {
-        "const": "seat"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "action",
-      "id",
-      "agent_key"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "action": {
-        "const": "seat_update"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "action",
-      "id",
-      "agent_key",
-      "body"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "action": {
-        "const": "leave"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "action",
-      "id",
-      "agent_key"
-    ]
-  }
-]
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the tool non-read-only, destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable domain behavior beyond those annotations: max_share_cents capping, skipped cycles, the 48-hour dispute window, founding royalty requirements, and the consequence that an underfunded cycle does not post work or charge other seats more.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well structured: it front-loads the action inventory, then states global behavioral rules, then maps each action to its endpoint and body fields. The length is justified by six actions and multiple constraints, though the prose is quite packed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex multi-action tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and only 9% schema description coverage, the description supplies substantial missing context about actions, body fields, and billing/dispute rules. It still omits return-value expectations and explanations for several top-level parameters, so it is not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 9%, so the description must compensate, and it does specify key body fields per action (recurrence_id, title, attribution_ref, max_share_cents, dispute cycle/reason). However, several top-level parameters such as wanted_id, transfer_id, idempotency_key, delete_credential, and payment_signature are not explained in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the resource and the six supported actions: creating/reading a maintenance feed, subscribing a seat, reading seat/work data, updating max_share_cents or disputing a cycle, and leaving. This is much more specific than the title. However, it does not distinguish this tool from any sibling tool by name or scenario.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The action list and per-action prerequisites imply when each sub-action should be used, such as create requiring an active monthly balance-funded monitoring_alerts recurrence. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related sibling tools such as recurrence, balance_get, or settlement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Licium toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources