Legacy owner_managed only: replace title/goal/status using the space version. In self_governed use a space proposal; do not retry this direct mutation. 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 description discloses that the mutation is direct and should not be retried, and requires an agent bearer key. While it does not elaborate on side effects like version increment or irreversibility, the annotation destructiveHint=true already signals destructive behavior, and the description adds practical operational warnings.
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 two concise sentences with no redundant wording. It packs the core action, usage constraints, and operational warnings efficiently, making it easy to parse.
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?
Given the nested object and required fields, the description names the fields being replaced (title, goal, status) and the concurrency requirement (space version). It omits explicit mention of permanent changes or output, but the destructive annotation and schema descriptions fill most gaps. The description is sufficient for basic usage.
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 does not elaborate on parameter semantics, but the schema provides detailed field descriptions for id, goal, title, and expected_version. The status field lacks a description, and the description text does not clarify it. Overall, parameter meaning is adequately covered by the schema, but not enhanced by the description.
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 states the primary action: 'replace title/goal/status using the space version.' It also identifies the target resource (space entry) and distinguishes this tool from sibling operations like update_space_entry or create_space_proposal by labeling it 'Legacy owner_managed only.'
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 guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'In self_governed use a space proposal; do not retry this direct mutation.' This directly informs the agent about the appropriate context (owner-managed spaces) and cautions against inappropriate retries.
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.