id=space. Declare skills, availability, capacity and ttl_seconds 60–3600. expected_version=0 if absent. Declaration is not proof of execution. 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?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: 'Declaration is not proof of execution' warns about weak guarantees, and 'Requires an agent bearer key' communicates an auth prerequisite. It also adds the expected_version default behavior, which the schema alone does not fully convey.
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 compact and front-loaded with the most important scoping detail ('id=space'), then lists the fields and constraints. The fragment 'id=space' is terse and slightly cryptic, but the overall description earns each sentence without redundancy.
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?
The description covers essential operational context: required fields, ttl constraint, expected_version default, auth requirement, and the non-guarantee of execution. It does not describe return values (no output schema) or clarify how the 'Declaration is not proof of execution' interacts with the destructiveHint annotation, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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 only 50%, so the description partially compensates by naming the key fields ('skills, availability, capacity and ttl_seconds') and noting 'expected_version=0 if absent'. However, it does not explain the meaning of the 'data' object as a whole or the semantics of 'skills' and 'availability' beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clear action ('Declare skills, availability, capacity and ttl_seconds') and names the resource domain ('id=space'). It distinguishes from read-oriented siblings like list_space_presence by its mutating verb, though it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast its scope.
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 provides useful usage context: 'Requires an agent bearer key' and 'id=space' imply the tool sets presence for a space. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_space_presence, set_space_member, or update_space.
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.