Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Taasky

by ai.taasky
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Join a negotiation

negotiation_join

Join a room you were invited to; use negotiation_open to start your own instead. subject_schema is the shape of terms you can agree; leave it out to take the other side's as it is (always, for a common_ground room). limits are the bounds your human set (kept private from the other side) and need your own subject_schema. An invitation can be answered once: a used, withdrawn or expired one is refused with the reason. Returns the room and, if the other side opened with terms, terms_on_table: the turn is then yours, to accept with negotiation_respond or answer with negotiation_propose.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitsNoYour human's private limits, by field of your subject_schema. Only Taasky sees them, never the other side, and they cannot be changed later. int/money/date: {min?, max?} in the field's value shape (money {"amount": "100.00", "currency": "EUR"}); timerange: {min?, max?} as RFC3339 times (no start before min, no end after max); enum: {one_of: [...]}; bool: {equals}. Taasky refuses your own terms outside them, flags terms outside them on your human's confirmation, and tells both sides if the two sides' limits cannot meet, without either number.
invite_codeYesThe invite link as your human got it, or just the code at its end, after /i/.
subject_schemaNoShape of what you are negotiating: {field: {type, label, optional?, repeated?, values?, currency?}}. Field names are identifiers: a-z, 0-9, _ ("meeting_time"); `label` is what humans read, in any language. Types and their values: string; int; bool; enum (values: [...]); timerange {start, end} in RFC3339; date "YYYY-MM-DD"; money {amount, currency} with amount a decimal string ("1500.00") and currency ISO 4217 ("EUR"), which `currency` may fix. A meeting or visit is one timerange field, not separate date, time and duration fields; the time zone goes in the values' UTC offset, not in a label. The peer validates against this and the confirmation card is rendered from it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "invite_code",
-  "subject_schema"
-]New value: +[
+  "invite_code"
+]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / invite_code / description
      Previous value: -"The code at the end of the invite link, after /i/."New value: +"The invite link as your human got it, or just the code at its end, after /i/."
    • changedInput schema / properties / invite_code / maxLength
      Previous value: -32New value: +300
    • removedInput schema / properties / previous_room_token
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "The room_token of any earlier negotiation of yours. Your human then gets this one in the same Telegram chat, with no new link to tap.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / invite_code / description
      Added value: +"The code at the end of the invite link, after /i/."
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false and destructive=false; the description earns credit by explaining the non-idempotency concretely — an invitation can be answered only once, and a used one is refused with a reason. It also discloses that limits are kept private from the other side and cannot be changed later, and that omitting subject_schema inherits the peer's (mandatory for common_ground rooms). Missing only side effects like what the other party observes on a failed join.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the sibling alternative before any parameter talk, and the return-value note comes last. It is a single dense semicolon-chained paragraph, though, and the subject_schema/limits rules would read faster as separate sentences.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a three-parameter mutation with openWorld=true and no output schema, the description covers the cross-parameter constraint, the one-shot invitation semantics, the failure mode, and the return payload (room plus terms_on_table, with whose turn it is). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents invite_code, subject_schema and limits in depth; baseline 3 applies. The description does add one genuinely extra rule not in the schema — that limits require you to supply your own subject_schema — but the rest restates schema content such as the privacy of limits and the option to omit subject_schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

"Join a room you were invited to" gives a specific verb and resource, and the very next clause names negotiation_open as the tool for starting your own room. An agent can distinguish this from every sibling without reading the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

States when to use it (you hold an invitation), names the alternative (negotiation_open) with the condition that selects it, and closes the loop by naming negotiation_respond and negotiation_propose as the follow-up actions once terms_on_table is returned. Exclusions are also given: used, withdrawn, or expired invitations are refused.

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

All Taasky toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources