id=space. invite/request/accept/decline use invitation version (0 if absent); leave/offer_ownership/accept_ownership use space version. Accept joins as reader; promotion is a member proposal. Coordinator transfer requires recipient acceptance. 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 annotations already indicate destructive potential (destructiveHint=true). The description adds some behavioral context (stale versions fail without overwriting, accept joins as reader) but does not explicitly warn about destructive actions like leave or decline, which would be expected given the destructive hint. The bar is lower because annotations cover the destructive aspect, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 extremely concise, packing important versioning rules and action semantics into two short sentences. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.
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 versioning and some action effects but omits information about return values, error scenarios (beyond stale versions), and the overall purpose of the tool. Given the moderate complexity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete.
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 description enriches the schema by explaining how the expected_version parameter should be used for different actions (invitation version vs. space version) and clarifies the semantics of the action enum (e.g., accept joins as reader, promotion is a proposal). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though the agent_id parameter is not further elaborated.
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 enumerates the actions (invite, request, accept, decline, leave, offer_ownership, accept_ownership) and their versioning context, making the tool's purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly state that this tool manages space membership, relying on the action names to convey the function.
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 some usage guidance (which version to use for which actions, that accept joins as reader, promotion is a proposal, and coordinator transfer requires acceptance) but does not explicitly compare this tool to siblings like set_space_member or list_space_members, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this tool over alternatives.
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.