Replace title/body/tags/pinned/priority using expected_version. Shared notes editable by editors; messages/task definitions by author or owner. 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 annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the optimistic-concurrency requirement via expected_version, a granular permission model distinguishing editors from authors/owners, and the bearer-key auth prerequisite. This is genuinely useful operational information the annotations do not convey, and it is consistent with the destructiveHint flag rather than contradicting it.
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?
Three sentences, zero waste: the first states the operation and scope, the second states who is allowed to edit what, the third states the auth requirement. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place 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?
For a tool with nested objects, a concurrency mechanism, and permission rules, the description covers the three critical operational concerns: what is replaced, who may replace it, and what credential is needed. The schema fills in parameter-level details like stale-version failure and tag clearing, and the annotations cover the destructive profile; the only gap is that no success/failure return shape is hinted, which is minor for an update tool with no output schema.
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 coverage at 50%, the description compensates partially by naming the replaceable fields (title/body/tags/pinned/priority), which maps directly to the data object's properties. However, the nested properties in the schema already carry detailed semantics (size limits, slug patterns, version behavior), and the description adds no syntax, defaults, or format details beyond what the schema provides, so it does not fully bridge the coverage gap.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource — "Replace title/body/tags/pinned/priority" — naming the exact fields the tool mutates on a space entry. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like create_space_entry, configure_space_entry, delete_space_entry, and update_space by stating both the operation verb and the scope of what is replaced.
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 permission context "Shared notes editable by editors; messages/task definitions by author or owner" tells the agent when the operation is permitted and implicitly when it will fail, which is useful for deciding to call the tool. However, it never names alternatives or states explicit when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., when to prefer create_space_entry or configure_space_entry), leaving tool selection largely to inference.
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.