Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Semanto by Trooth

by co.trooth
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Confirm the reviewed version

semanto_setup_confirm
Idempotent

Confirms the version the person reviewed. root_hash must be the newest build's, or the answer says the version changed while it was being reviewed. Needs an agent key with write scope (owner scope where only the owner may).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "version": "<version>",
      "root_hash": "<root_hash>"
    },
    "name": "semanto_setup_confirm"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
versionYesThe version number from semanto_review_get.
root_hashYessha256:<64 hex>, from semanto_review_get.
trooth_idNoThe company's Trooth ID, for example acme. Leave it out to use the company the agent key belongs to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the write semantics are covered. The description adds two valuable behavioral facts beyond annotations: the stale root_hash failure mode and the required agent key scope (write, or owner where only the owner may). It doesn't explain what confirmation accomplishes downstream, but for a non-destructive idempotent write this is solid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first the purpose, then the stale-version constraint, then the auth requirement. It is front-loaded and free of repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return-relevant behavior; it does so by naming the version-changed answer. For a mutation tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the purpose, auth, and failure mode are adequately covered, though the post-confirm outcome is left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description still adds meaning by explaining why root_hash matters (it must be the newest build's or the version-changed answer is returned), which goes beyond the schema's format note. It does not add similar context for version or trooth_id, but the added constraint on the critical parameter earns above the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Confirms the version the person reviewed,' making the mutation clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings such as semanto_review_get or semanto_setup_choose, but the confirm action is specific enough for an agent in the setup flow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage after a review and adds a condition (root_hash must match the newest build), but it never states when to use this vs alternatives or what to do if the answer says the version changed. The schema hints at semanto_review_get, but the description itself gives only implied guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Semanto by Trooth toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources