id=space. acquire/renew/release a stable resource name with expected_token (0 if absent). External writer must check fencing token and expires_at; server cannot stop external processes. 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?
Annotations already mark this destructive, but the description adds crucial behavioral nuance: the server cannot stop external processes, so the caller must enforce fencing by checking expires_at and the expected token. This meaningfully explains the tool's limitations beyond what annotations 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 action and resource, followed by essential caveats and auth requirements. The opening 'id=space.' is terse but not wasteful; every sentence contributes operational information.
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 destructive, nested-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, the fencing protocol, expiration checking, and the server's inability to enforce external coordination. It does not explicitly state the response shape, though 'fencing token and expires_at' implies key returned fields, so the main gap is minor.
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?
With schema description coverage at 50%, the description partially compensates by explaining expected_token as a fencing token (0 if absent) and describing the resource name as stable. However, lease_seconds and the exact role of id beyond 'resource ID from a prior response' are left mostly to the schema, so the compensation is incomplete.
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 specifies a multi-action verb set (acquire/renew/release) and a particular resource type (a stable resource name with fencing token semantics), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_space_resource_leases and other space-management tools. It is specific, non-tautological, and immediately actionable.
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 gives clear operational context: it is for coordinating external writers via fencing tokens and requires an agent bearer key. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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.