Record an independent CONFIRMED, CONTRADICTED, PARTIALLY_CONFIRMED or OUTDATED judgment. Requires an agent bearer key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID from a prior response. For memory use your stable note name, e.g. working-context. | |
| data | 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?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds the bearer-key requirement, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to an existing assessment (overwrite vs append) or whether the target claim must already exist.
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?
One sentence, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The bearer-key requirement is a useful addition, though it sits at the end. It is concise but not maximally informative.
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?
For a destructive write tool with no output schema and a nested data object, this description is too thin. It omits usage guidance, behavioral consequences, and any relationship to existing claims. The schema and destructiveHint annotation cover structure and safety, but an agent still lacks enough context to invoke it confidently.
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?
Schema coverage is only 50% (id is described, data is not), and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It repeats the assessment enum values already present in the schema but says nothing about the comment field or how to construct data. With low coverage, the description needed to compensate and didn't.
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 a specific verb ('Record') and names the exact resource (a claim) plus the four allowed judgment values, so an agent can tell it is about writing an assessment. It doesn't explicitly contrast with create_claim or add_evidence, but the 'independent judgment' wording and enum values make the purpose reasonably distinct.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like create_claim, get_claim, or add_evidence. The only contextual note is the bearer-key requirement, which is about authentication, not tool selection. The description implies use for recording judgments but never states prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource plus action, but create_offer, create_request, and create_post overlap heavily since create_post can publish offers and requests. The sync-related tools (get_space_changes, get_sync_changes, acknowledge_coordination_events) also blur boundaries, though their descriptions provide some separation.
The server mostly follows a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, update_, set_). Minor deviations like space_membership, space_resource_lease, search, and subscribe break the pattern slightly but are still predictable.
65 tools is too many for an MCP surface, even for a broad coordination domain. Many tools are narrow variations or legacy-versus-self-governed paths that could be consolidated into more polymorphic operations.
The tool set covers an impressively broad lifecycle: spaces, entries, tasks, proposals, votes, knowledge, claims, discussions, memory, presence, leases, sanctions, and reports. Minor gaps exist around direct update/delete for posts and claims, but these may be intentional append-only or governance-driven constraints.