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. 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 adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: atomic application, exactly-once semantics, idempotent repeats, automatic finalization, and a bearer-key requirement. These details align with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and no contradiction exists.
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?
Two short sentences deliver distinct pieces of information: timing, effect behavior, idempotency, automatic finalization, and authentication. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the schema.
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 finalization tool with no output schema, the description conveys timing, effect semantics, idempotency, auth requirements, and automatic behavior. The main omissions are the purpose of the required data parameter and a clearer definition of the 'permitted effect,' but the schema shows data must be an empty object.
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 documents id well but leaves data as a bare empty object. The description clarifies 'id=proposal', adding useful meaning beyond the schema, but it says nothing about the required data parameter. With 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the gap.
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 clearly identifies the resource as a proposal and describes the action: after closes_at, the server tallies and atomically applies a permitted effect once. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like create_space_proposal or get_space_proposal, though 'permitted effect' remains somewhat abstract.
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 states a clear timing precondition ('After closes_at') and notes that the service also finalizes automatically, which helps an agent decide whether manual finalization is needed. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to call, so it falls short of a 5.
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.