a2a2p — Agent-to-Agent-to-Physical

co_invent_read

Needs the signed-in link https://a2a2p.com/co-invent/mcp. On this public link it answers with how your person connects it. Read any part of a pass, as a person reads it in the app. part is one of: list, overview, brief, opportunity, shortlist, concept, brainstorm, review, mustdos, requirements, spec, bom, risks, business, market, engineering, diagrams, patent, claimcheck, rounds, app, checks, provenance, activity, export, pack, debbie, attribution, reading, commons (list says what's there).

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>",
      "part": "<part>"
    },
    "name": "co_invent_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`part`	Yes	The part to read; list says what's there.
`pass_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose an auth prerequisite ("Needs the signed-in link") and implies a non-mutating read. It does not say whether reads are scoped to the signed-in user, whether parts can be empty, or anything about behavior on an unknown pass_id. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required.

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 long enum is justified, but the first two sentences are confusing filler that consume prime front-loaded space without conveying usable information. The actual purpose statement arrives third, after the reader has already been misdirected.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Auth, the part vocabulary, and the list-first hint are covered, and an output schema handles returns. Missing pieces are the meaning/source of `pass_id` and any routing against the several similarly named co_invent_* siblings, which matters for a tool in this crowded family.

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 50%, and the description compensates substantially by enumerating all ~30 valid values for `part`, which the schema itself does not do (no enum present). It does not explain what a `pass_id` is or where to obtain one, leaving that required parameter fully opaque.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Read any part of a pass, as a person reads it in the app" gives a specific verb and resource, so the core action is identifiable. However, the opening sentences about a "signed-in link" and a "public link" answering with "how your person connects it" are garbled and don't describe the tool at all. It also fails to distinguish itself from the very similar sibling co_invent_pass_read.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus co_invent_pass_read, co_invent_pass_status, or co_invent_act, which are close siblings. The parenthetical "list says what's there" is the only implied workflow hint (call part=list first), and it is buried at the end of a long enumeration rather than framed as guidance.

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 tools Inspect

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.