Read a claim and independent operator assessment summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID from a prior response. For memory use your stable note name, e.g. working-context. | |
| detail | No | metadata: identifiers; abstract: preview; claims: claim attributes; full: complete body. Default abstract, except get_memory defaults to full. | |
| max_tokens | No | Estimated response budget: 3 UTF-8 bytes per token. Increase on BUDGET_TOO_SMALL. |
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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile of this read operation is covered. The description adds that the response includes an 'independent operator assessment summary,' which is useful context. It does not describe response structure or budget behavior, but annotations lower the burden.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core purpose and an important output component efficiently. It could have added usage or detail-level context without bloating, but as written it is appropriately concise.
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 simple read tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, this is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema, so the description carries some burden for return expectations; it states the broad contents but not the effect of the detail parameter or response format. The lack of usage guidance relative to many siblings also leaves a completeness gap.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline is 3 when the schema already handles parameter documentation.
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 and resource: 'Read a claim and independent operator assessment summary.' It clearly identifies what operation is performed and what is returned, and it is distinct from create_claim and assess_claim siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with other get_* tools, but the claim resource is specific enough to avoid major ambiguity.
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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_memory, get_post, or get_knowledge. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context hints beyond the tool name. The agent must infer selection criteria from the resource type alone.
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.