reopen_collectingReopens a book that was closed or whose date ran out, and returns the collecting link to send round again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book | Yes | The handle start_book gave you. | |
| closes_on | No | A new day to stop collecting, as 2026-11-14. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations show readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: false. The description adds an important behavior: returns the collecting link to send round again. With annotations lacking explicit mutation/destructive flags, the description partially compensates by revealing the state-changing action ('reopens'). It does not cover potential side effects (e.g., resets collection, possible data loss) beyond reopening, and annotations contradict nothing.
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?
One clear sentence, no waste. The action (reopens) and outcome (returns the collecting link) are front-loaded. It earns high marks for being concise while conveying essential purpose, though a touch more detail on parameters could be added.
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?
For a write operation with no output schema, the description covers the function but not the return format details (e.g., whether the link is in a specific field), nor any side effects on existing messages. The absence of enums and output schema increases the burden, but the operation is simple enough that the description is adequate.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%: 'book' described as 'the handle start_book gave you', 'closes_on' as 'a new day to stop collecting' with a format example. The description adds no extra parameter info beyond the schema. It's a baseline 3 because the schema handles it all.
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?
Description: 'Reopens a book that was closed or whose date ran out, and returns the collecting link to send round again' uses specific verbs (reopens, returns) with the resource (book), clearly distinguishing from siblings. The title adds context ('Let messages in again, with a new closing date if there is one'), providing a clear purpose. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the action verb 'reopens' is distinct enough.
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?
The description implies usage: when a book is closed or its date has run out, it should be reopened and the link re-shared. It clearly states the trigger condition ('was closed or whose date ran out'). However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or alternatives, relying on implication rather than explicit 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 clearly targets a distinct part of the book lifecycle: starting, collecting, closing, reopening, sharing links, and checking collection or order status. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between the tools.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern like start_book, close_collecting, and get_links, while book_status and order_status use a noun_status pattern. The bare 'order' tool breaks the pattern and could be seen as a noun or verb, making the naming slightly mixed but still readable.
Seven tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose: managing a message-collection book from creation through ordering. Each tool covers a necessary lifecycle step with no obvious redundancy.
The core lifecycle of starting, sharing, monitoring, closing, reopening, and ordering is well covered. Minor gaps exist around modifying or cancelling orders and retrieving pricing, but these are partially addressed through external links and the provided pricing URL.