Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

a2a2p — Agent-to-Agent-to-Physical

by com.a2a2p
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

co_invent_pass_step

Needs the signed-in link https://a2a2p.com/co-invent/mcp. On this public link it answers with how your person connects it. Older name for co_invent_act, kept so a connector with a saved tool list keeps working. A step it can't name travels as decide with body.step (next.legacy shows it).

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": {
      "pass_id": "<pass_id>",
      "operation": "<operation>"
    },
    "name": "co_invent_pass_step"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNo
pass_idYes
operationYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / operation / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "answer",
-  "ideas",
-  "develop",
-  "reject",
-  "steer",
-  "add",
-  "react",
-  "brainstorm",
-  "build",
-  "mustdos",
-  "model",
-  "pass",
-  "roundsteer",
-  "finalise",
-  "rate",
-  "decide",
-  "revise"
-]New value: +[
+  "answer",
+  "ideas",
+  "develop",
+  "reject",
+  "steer",
+  "add",
+  "react",
+  "brainstorm",
+  "build",
+  "mustdos",
+  "model",
+  "pass",
+  "roundsteer",
+  "finalise",
+  "claims",
+  "recheck",
+  "rate",
+  "decide",
+  "revise"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / operation / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "develop",
-  "brainstorm",
-  "build",
-  "mustdos",
-  "model",
-  "pass",
-  "finalise",
-  "rate",
-  "reject",
-  "react",
-  "decide"
-]New value: +[
+  "answer",
+  "ideas",
+  "develop",
+  "reject",
+  "steer",
+  "add",
+  "react",
+  "brainstorm",
+  "build",
+  "mustdos",
+  "model",
+  "pass",
+  "roundsteer",
+  "finalise",
+  "rate",
+  "decide",
+  "revise"
+]
  3. Added

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an auth-link prerequisite and a fallback mapping ('decide with body.step'), but says nothing about mutation risk, permissions, rate limits, or what the 19 operation values mean.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The key fact (legacy alias for co_invent_act) appears only in the third sentence after confusing statements about a URL and 'your person'. The prose is cryptic and not front-loaded, forcing the agent to parse unclear context before reaching the compatibility note.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with 19 operation values, a free-form body object, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is far too thin. The output schema helps with return values, but the description does not give an agent enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain pass_id, operation, and body. It mentions body.step only in a fallback aside and never explains pass_id or the operation enum, leaving most parameter meaning undocumented.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description only identifies the tool as an 'older name for co_invent_act' and never states the verb or resource it performs. An agent must already know what co_invent_act does to infer that this is a pass-step operation, so the compatibility alias helps routing but not purpose understanding.

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?

It implies this tool is for connectors with a saved tool list referencing the old name, with co_invent_act as the current alternative. That is useful when-to-use context, but it is buried and gives no explicit exclusions or operational distinction beyond compatibility.

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

All a2a2p — Agent-to-Agent-to-Physical toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources