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 | ||
| max_price_cents | No | ||
| requester_trust | Yes | ||
| requester_agent_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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?
Annotations only say the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior: identity from MCP access key, trust from GateCore's baseline, and a PROCURE/REVIEW/DENY outcome with delegation. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict behavior, though side effects are not explicitly stated.
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?
Two sentences front-load the core action and add only one compact sentence of behavioral context. There is no filler, and each clause adds information about mode, trust, or outcome.
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?
With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, this 6-parameter governance tool is under-specified. The description covers the decision categories and part of the auth model, but an agent still lacks parameter semantics, exact response shape, mode selection details, and error behavior.
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 description coverage is 0% and required fields like requester_trust, requester_agent_id, and scopes receive no explanation in the description. Saying 'procurement for a listing' only echoes the listing_id property and adds no semantic detail for the optional parameters or trust value.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Request governed procurement for a listing.' It also names the expected outcome (PROCURE, REVIEW, or DENY), which makes the tool's role distinct from the sibling read/list/lead tools. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over submit_lead or other siblings, and no stated conditions or exclusions. The phrase 'public full mode' hints at a mode distinction but does not explain when to use it or what alternatives exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.