procureRequest governed procurement for a listing. In public full mode, identity comes from the MCP access key, trust comes from GateCore's baseline, and the result is a PROCURE, REVIEW, or DENY decision with gateway delegation when eligible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scopes | No | ||
| listing_id | Yes | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| procurement_id | No | ||
| max_price_cents | No | ||
| requester_trust | Yes | ||
| requester_agent_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / procurement_idAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Procurement Id"
+}Input schema / properties / request_idAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Request Id"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false). It adds useful behavioral context by stating that the result is a PROCURE, REVIEW, or DENY decision and that gateway delegation happens 'when eligible'. However, it does not disclose the side effects of that delegation or whether the action creates or modifies a persisted record, which would add more beyond the annotations.
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 short and front-loaded, but the second sentence is dense with undefined domain terms ('GateCore's baseline', 'full mode', 'gateway delegation'). It is not overly verbose, but the compromised clarity for brevity.
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 destructive, 7-parameter tool with no output schema and sibling tools in the same domain, this description is not complete. It fails to define what 'governed procurement' means, what inputs drive the PROCURE/REVIEW/DENY outcome, how delegation is triggered, and what the relayed response looks like. An agent would need to guess at invocation semantics.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the seven parameters. The mention that 'identity comes from the MCP access key and trust from GateCore's baseline' muddies the role of the required requester_agent_id and requester_trust fields. This is a critical gap, as the description adds no meaning or format to the parameter names.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Request governed procurement for a listing') and even names the decision outcomes (PROCURE, REVIEW, DENY), which helps an agent infer the tool's function. However, it never differentiates this from the sibling request_listing_access or authorize_access, so the distinction between 'procurement' and 'access' is left to the reader.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the alternatives. The phrase 'In public full mode' hints at a conditional, but the description never says what mode the agent is in, when that mode applies, or how the tool's behavior changes. There is no wean to choose between procure and the sibling tools.
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.