Propose Project DNA and/or Tech Notes → Inbox (at least one).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dna | No | Omit to leave unchanged | |
| batch | No | import_from_code batch id | |
| project_id | No | ||
| tech_notes | No | Omit to leave unchanged |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / batch / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional — the import batch id from import_from_code, so it adopts with the same group."New value: +"import_from_code batch id"Input schema / properties / dna / descriptionPrevious value: -"Project DNA as markdown (what it is, who it's for, pillars, non-goals). Omit to leave DNA unchanged."New value: +"Omit to leave unchanged"Input schema / properties / project_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Project id (from list_projects) to act on; omit = the connector URL's project."Input schema / properties / tech_notes / descriptionPrevious value: -"Tech Notes as markdown (stack/engine, key libraries, database, infra, constraints). Omit to leave Tech Notes unchanged."New value: +"Omit to leave unchanged"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description only adds the inbox destination. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, what happens if both optional fields are omitted, or the role of project_id. With no readOnlyHint and minimal annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key constraint. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary detail.
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 tool has no output schema and only minimal annotations. The description does not clarify the role of batch or project_id, the expected result, or how this proposal integrates with the inbox workflow. Given the complexity of multiple optional parameters and many sibling propose_* tools, this is incomplete.
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 schema already describes dna, batch, and tech_notes; the description adds the cardinality constraint that at least one of dna/tech_notes is required. However, project_id is undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.
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 action ('Propose') and resources ('Project DNA and/or Tech Notes') with an explicit destination ('→ Inbox') and a required constraint ('at least one'). This distinguishes it from sibling propose_* tools by naming the unique resource combination.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool over alternatives such as propose_system or propose_screen. The 'at least one' phrase is a requirement, not a usage context, and there is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
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.