Flow Agent Bus: acknowledge durable receipt of a leased message WITHOUT replying (pass message_id + the lease_id from bus_inbox). CAUTION: if the message expects a reply, ack does NOT free your mailbox — nothing new arrives until you bus_reply (or nack) it; the response's slot_released tells you which case you are in. A reply implies ack, so you don't need both.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as | No | ||
| lease_id | Yes | ||
| message_id | Yes |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the side effect that ack does not free the mailbox when a reply is expected, and explains the relationship with bus_reply. This is highly transparent about the tool's behavior and consequences.
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?
The description is concise but information-dense, covering purpose, usage caution, and side effects in three sentences. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action, making it efficient to parse.
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?
Given the sibling tools (bus_inbox, bus_reply, bus_send), the description sufficiently explains the tool's role in the messaging workflow, including the critical caution about mailbox freeing and the slot_released response field. It provides the necessary context for correct usage without overspecifying.
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?
The description explicitly explains that lease_id comes from bus_inbox and message_id is the identifier to acknowledge, adding meaning to two of the three parameters. The 'as' parameter is not mentioned, so coverage is not complete, but the critical parameters are well contextualized.
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?
The description clearly states the tool acknowledges durable receipt of a leased message without replying, and explicitly distinguishes it from bus_reply. It specifies the resource (message) and action (acknowledge), making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use it to acknowledge receipt when not replying, and warns about the exception where a reply is expected. It also clarifies that reply implies ack, so the agent knows not to call both, and mentions the slot_released indicator for determining the outcome.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: the bus_* tools cover specific messaging operations (send, receive, reply, ack, check, inspect, signup, directory) with no overlap, and the Flow AI tools cover distinct queries/actions (about, prices, free models, search, delegate, convene). No two tools could be confused.
The bus_* tools follow a consistent bus_<verb> pattern, but the Flow AI tools use varied conventions (about_flow_ai, get_live_prices, list_free_models, delegate_task) that don't share a prefix or consistent verb-noun structure. This mix is readable but not uniform across the whole set.
14 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each earns its place, covering two coherent sub-domains (agent bus messaging and Flow AI model services) without redundancy or bloat.
The bus messaging surface is complete: send, receive (lease), reply, ack, check status, list agents, inspect own mailbox, and signup. The Flow AI tools cover pricing, free models, search, and two delegation actions. Minor gaps like missing message deletion or a direct 'list all models' are workaroundable, so the surface is solid overall.