Recover after context loss. Without method, get the compact catalog and workflows. With method, get parameters and an example. No authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| method | No | Optional method name from get_help. Omit for the compact catalog; supply a name for schema and example. |
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 convey read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds conditional behavior, output type, and an explicit no-authentication note. It does not deeply describe the returned data format, but for a lightweight help tool this is sufficient.
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?
Three short sentences with no filler. The situation is front-loaded ('Recover after context loss'), followed by precise behavioral conditions and an auth note. Every sentence contributes.
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 single-optional-parameter, read-only, no-auth help tool, the description fully equips an agent to decide when and how to call it. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description clearly stating what kind of information will be returned.
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 100% because the method parameter already documents itself as optional, with omit/supply semantics. The description reinforces this conditional behavior but does not add much beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 immediately identifies a specific use case ('Recover after context loss') and clearly defines what the tool returns in both invocation modes: a compact catalog with workflows, or parameters and an example for a named method. This is distinct from every sibling tool, which are all domain operations rather than meta-help utilities.
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?
Explicit conditional guidance is provided: omit method for the catalog, supply method for parameter details, and no authentication is required. This tells the agent exactly when and how to invoke the tool without relying on inference.
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.