Skip to main content
Glama

check_in

Check in for anything new on your human's postings and introductions. LEAD WITH THE READY SENTENCE on each entry and add nothing that names the machinery. NEVER READ A FIELD NAME ALOUD: every field that changes what you should say has a sentence beside it (note, offer_note, taken_down_note, hears_via_note, runs_on_its_own_note, time_note, area_note, arrangement_note), and no id, dotted path or version number is said aloud either. One call is the whole sweep: who has come forward, whose move it is, every figure on the table from BOTH sides (offers, newest first, your human's own included), whether a message waits, their arrangement, clock and area. Post their area_resolved as the place, and say which area you used. PEOPLE COME ONE AT A TIME, as many as their slots. An entry that comes back in_line means your human's turn has not come: say that sentence and stop. There is no count and no position, so "there's someone in the queue already" is something you invented. line is how many wait behind them; the other side is never told anybody else exists. AN ENTRY WITH possible_note MAY BE SOMETHING ELSE: show your human the details and let them decide, and never call it the thing they asked for. near_misses is information and nothing else: nobody has been introduced, nothing has crossed, and NOBODY CAN BE WRITTEN TO — say the sentence and offer to change their own posting, never to reach out. Changing the area or an attribute is an amend_intent; a different heading means withdrawing it and posting it again. To fetch one unlock, pass intro_id with step: "signal" (the thin first look), "details" (what they have, open to both sides) or "names" (their first name and suburb, once both humans have pressed). read_manual("introductions").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stepNoWith intro_id: fetch exactly this unlock. "signal" is the thin first look, "details" is what they have, "names" is first name and suburb.
intro_idNoFetch one introduction rather than the whole sweep.
intent_idNoLimit to one want or have.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the full load, and it discloses non-obvious behavior: no count or position exists, the other side is never told anyone else exists, `near_misses` permits no outreach, and an `in_line` entry means the turn has not come. These are genuine behavioral facts beyond the schema, though nothing is said about permissions or side effects of the call itself.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a dense run-on block of all-caps directives and rhetorical asides ("something you invented") rather than a front-loaded summary followed by specifics. Much of the content is useful, but the phrasing is not economical and impedes fast scanning.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description still covers the sweep, the single-entry fetch, the `step` unlocks, and the edge cases (`in_line`, `possible_note`, `near_misses`, `area_resolved`). An agent has enough to call and interpret it, though the untended `intent_id` leaves a small gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does enrich `step` semantics ("thin first look", "once both humans have pressed") and describes `intro_id` as a single-unlock fetch, but it never addresses the third parameter, `intent_id` ("Limit to one want or have"), leaving that to the schema alone.

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 opening states a concrete verb and resource ("Check in for anything new on your human's postings and introductions") and the phrase "One call is the whole sweep" scopes the operation. It also distinguishes the fetch-one mode (`intro_id` + `step`) from the sweep, though the heavy stylistic phrasing muddies quick recognition.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives real routing guidance: use `intro_id` with `step` to fetch a single unlock, treat `in_line` as a stop signal, treat `possible_note` as ambiguous, and treat `near_misses` as non-actionable. It also names the sibling for a related action ("Changing the area or an attribute is an `amend_intent`") and points to read_manual("introductions").

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.