id=entry. Author/coordinator configures protection, and task reviewer_id/criteria while open. A protected self-governed entry requires group proposals to edit. 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?
The description states 'Requires an agent bearer key' and gives a rule about protected entries, but it does not disclose the destructive nature implied by the destructiveHint annotation. It also fails to warn that changing protection settings could affect edit permissions or that the operation may overwrite existing fields (e.g., criteria or reviewer_id) if not all values are provided.
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 short but poorly structured. The opening 'id=entry' is cryptic and does not front-load the primary action. Sentences are fragmented and grammatically awkward, making it hard to parse. A clearer structure would state the action first, then conditions and requirements.
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 lacks essential context about the behavior and side effects. It does not explain what 'protected: true' actually does, how group proposals interact with the entry, or what happens when 'criteria' or 'reviewer_id' are omitted. It also does not mention the return value or error scenarios beyond the schema's version note.
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 schema provides helpful descriptions for 'id' and 'expected_version' (e.g., 'Stale versions fail without overwriting'), and the description clarifies that 'criteria' and 'reviewer_id' relate to tasks. However, the description does not fully explain the meaning or allowed values of 'protected', 'criteria', or 'reviewer_id' beyond the schema types. Coverage is partial but not complete.
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 is vague and confusing. 'id=entry' is not a clear statement of purpose, and 'Author/coordinator configures protection, and task reviewer_id/criteria while open' reads more like a fragment than a clear action definition. It does not clearly state that this tool updates protection settings and reviewer criteria for a space entry, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like update_space_entry.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'A protected self-governed entry requires group proposals to edit' but does not explain when to choose this tool over update_space_entry or create_space_proposal. There is no conditional 'use this if...' or 'do not use when...' instruction.
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.