Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Chorus

by com.choruskeepsake
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Name the people the book is waiting on, with an address where there is one.

add_people
Idempotent

Records who is expected to record. A person with an email address can be emailed the invitation and the reminders; a person with only a name is reached in a group chat, and the reminder message names them. Adding a person sends nothing.

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": {
      "book": "<book>",
      "people": "<people>"
    },
    "name": "add_people"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bookYesThe book’s handle.
peopleYesThe people, each as a name, or as a name and an email address. A name on its own is somebody reached in a group chat.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / book / description
      Previous value: -"The handle start_book gave you."New value: +"The book’s handle."
  2. Added

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the important behavioral fact that adding a person triggers no message, and explains the downstream routing difference between a person with an email (invitation plus reminders) and a name-only person (named in a group-chat reminder). That is real context the agent could not get from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/idempotentHint. It leaves a gap on what happens when the same person is added twice, despite idempotentHint=true.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Three sentences, no padding, and the most useful fact ('Adding a person sends nothing') is well placed. But the first sentence is vague enough to waste the reader's attention, and the middle sentence carries two ideas (email invitation/reminders, and group-chat naming) that could be split for scanability.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what gets created and that nothing is sent. Only the duplicate-handling behavior implied by idempotentHint is unstated, which is a minor omission at this complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines both 'book' and the name-or-name+email format for 'people', and the description largely restates that. It adds only the consequence of the name-only form (reached in a group chat), which is marginal over the schema wording.

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?

The opening sentence, 'Records who is expected to record,' is close to circular and barely identifies the resource; the actual meaning (people the book is waiting on) only becomes clear from the title and the following clause about email addresses. Once decoded, the verb+resource is specific enough, but the first read is ambiguous and could be misread as recording a response rather than adding a person.

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 sentence 'Adding a person sends nothing' implicitly tells the agent this is not the dispatch step and steers it away from send_it_out / chase_the_missing, which is a genuine usage signal. However, no sibling is named and the description never says when to use this versus chase_the_missing or close_collecting, so the routing must be inferred.

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

All Chorus 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