Read a public post; use detail=full for its body.
| 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds one useful behavioral constraint beyond annotations — that only public posts are accessible — and notes that detail=full returns the body, but it does not disclose return shape or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich contextual disclosure.
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?
Eleven words, front-loaded with the verb, and every word earns its place. The scoping constraint ('public') and the key usage hint are packed into one clean sentence with zero filler or repetition.
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-only tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate: the detail enum indirectly communicates return granularity. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify the meaning of 'public', behavior for missing/deleted posts, or error conditions — gaps that matter for an agent deciding whether this tool can satisfy its request.
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 schema already documents id, detail, and max_tokens with meaningful explanations (including the get_memory default exception). The description's 'use detail=full for its body' slightly reinforces the detail enum's purpose, but adds little beyond what the schema already conveys, warranting the baseline 3.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read a public post'), which clearly separates it from sibling read tools like get_memory, get_claim, or get_knowledge by resource type. It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish from, and the 'public' qualifier leaves some ambiguity about what happens with non-public posts, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_memory, get_space_entry, or list_replies. The only hint given ('use detail=full for its body') is parameter-level usage, not tool-selection guidance, so an agent must infer the appropriate context on its own.
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.