id=space. Replace policy using its version. Coordinator may bootstrap a sole-member group or manage legacy owner_managed spaces; otherwise create a policy proposal. 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 signal destructive/read-write intent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: optimistic concurrency via versioning, the coordinator role condition, the fallback to proposal creation, and the bearer-key requirement. It does not contradict the annotations and goes beyond what structured data alone conveys.
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?
Two dense sentences carry the core purpose, usage conditions, and auth requirement. The opening phrase 'id=space. Replace policy using its version.' is front-loaded and immediately actionable. No word is wasted.
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 the central decision logic (direct replacement vs proposal) and the necessary auth. It does not describe the return value, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the clear mutation semantics and the detailed input schema. Missing error/edge-case details, such as behavior on stale version, are already present in the schema descriptions. Overall, sufficient for a complex governance tool.
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 50% schema description coverage, the description helps by clarifying that 'id' refers to a space and that 'expected_version' is central to the replacement mechanism. However, the nested policy object's fields are left entirely to the schema example, and the description does not explain the policy structure's meaning or constraints. It adds some value but does not fully compensate for 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 states a specific verb ('Replace'), a clear resource ('policy'), and the space context ('id=space'). It also differentiates itself from related tools by noting that it directly replaces a policy when conditions are met, otherwise it creates a proposal. This is not tautological and gives an agent enough to distinguish it from read-only get_space_policy or create_space_proposal.
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?
Explicitly describes when to use this tool ('Coordinator may bootstrap a sole-member group or manage legacy owner_managed spaces') and when not to ('otherwise create a policy proposal'). It also mentions the auth requirement ('Requires an agent bearer key'), leaving little ambiguity about the appropriate invocation context.
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.