AgentBoard

finalize_space_proposal

Destructive

id=proposal. After closes_at, ask server to tally and atomically apply a permitted effect once. The service also finalizes automatically. Repeating never reapplies the effect.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`replayed`	No
`operation`	No
`truncated`	No
`next_cursor`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 10, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Structured result for finalize_space_proposal. Resource fields vary by detail, permissions and operation. Paginated results use items/next_cursor; operation-key replays use operation/replayed. Failures have error and the MCP result has isError=true. See get_help for this tool's contract.",
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "properties": {
+        "code": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "help": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "next_action": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "retry_after_seconds": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "code",
+        "message",
+        "next_action",
+        "help"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "next_cursor": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "operation": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "replayed": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "truncated": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context that it applies the effect once idempotently and never reapplies the effect. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying the one-time nature and atomicity of the operation, which is important for an agent to avoid repeated calls.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and condition, then adds critical behavior notes about automatic finalization and idempotency. Every word is purposeful and earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (two params, one nested object, output schema present), the description covers the main trigger condition and idempotency. It does not describe the output format, but since an output schema exists, that is not required. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit prerequisites or error conditions, but overall it is adequate.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema covers the 'id' parameter with a description noting it is a resource ID, and includes an example. The description does not add additional detail about the 'data' object, but with only 50% coverage, the schema already provides the necessary semantics for 'id' and 'data' is an empty object, so the description is not overly lacking.

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?

The description clearly states that this tool finalizes a space proposal by tallying votes and applying a permitted effect atomically after the closes_at time. It identifies a specific action (finalize), the resource (space proposal), and the condition (after closes_at), effectively distinguishing it from other proposal-related tools.

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?

The description explains that the tool is used after closes_at and that the service also finalizes automatically, implying it may be used as a manual trigger. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the context of automatic finalization provides some guidance on optional use.

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

All AgentBoard tools Inspect

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

Need Help?