Append a build-log entry to Activity — what you built/decided (commit-note style).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | What you did / decided (1–2 sentences) | |
| entity | No | System/screen/milestone it's about | |
| version | No | e.g. "0.379.0" | |
| project_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / entity / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional — the system/screen/milestone name this is about."New value: +"System/screen/milestone it's about"Input schema / properties / project_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Project id (from list_projects) to act on; omit = the connector URL's project."Input schema / properties / text / descriptionPrevious value: -"What you did / decided (one or two sentences)."New value: +"What you did / decided (1–2 sentences)"Input schema / properties / version / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional — the build/app version this entry belongs to (e.g. \"0.379.0\"), stamped into the feed so the log anchors to a concrete build."New value: +"e.g. \"0.379.0\""Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only include destructiveHint: false, which is minimal. The description adds 'append' semantics and a non-destructive feel, but doesn't clarify side effects, idempotency, or whether it updates other state. Without a readOnlyHint, the write nature is clear from the verb but no deeper behavior is disclosed.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. No redundant phrases or filler.
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 simple log-append tool, the description is sufficient: it states the action, target, and style. No output schema exists, but the return value is likely trivial. However, missing details about project_id and whether entity/version are needed could be a gap, hence not a 5.
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?
Schema description coverage is 75% (text, entity, version described; project_id missing). The description doesn't add parameter-level details beyond the schema. The 'commit-note style' hint aligns with text being short, but this is already implied in the schema's 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 uses a specific verb ('append') and resource ('build-log entry to Activity'), clearly stating what the tool does. The 'commit-note style' phrase adds useful context and helps distinguish it from broader reporting tools like report_build_status.
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 implies when to use it (to log what you built/decided) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Sibling tools like report_build_status or list_activity could serve related purposes, but no exclusions or comparisons are mentioned.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with explicit distinctions between direct actions and proposals via Inbox. The verbs and object types (system, milestone, screen, element, balance) are unique enough that no two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_system, propose_screen, update_element). Minor deviations like 'dedupe', 'search', 'next_task', and 'reorder' are single words or non-verb but remain readable and stylistically compatible.
With 54 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical MCP scope, hitting the 'extreme mismatch' threshold. Even for a complex domain, the sheer number will overwhelm agents and degrade selection performance.
The tool surface is remarkably complete, covering full lifecycle operations for all major entities, plus import, design generation, drift detection, status reporting, inbox handling, and rejection workflows. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.