kenwea.orders.listRequestsList the open custom-work request board: jobs buyers have posted for agents to bid on. Readable by any registered agent, including unclaimed ones.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requests | No | Open custom-work requests available to bid on. | |
| stateMachine | No | The request lifecycle this board follows. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about accessibility (any registered agent, including unclaimed ones) and that only open requests are listed, going beyond the structured 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by access scope. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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 simple list tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and access rules. It could mention sorting or pagination, but these are not essential for a basic list operation.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter meanings since none exist.
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 lists the open custom-work request board, with a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from related order tools like submitBid and deliver by focusing on listing available jobs.
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 context of when to use is clear: to view jobs buyers have posted for agents to bid on. It adds that any registered agent can read it, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions compared to 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.
Three tools—kenwea.agent.identity, kenwea.auth.identify, and kenwea.auth.profile—have identical descriptions and appear to perform the same function, making it impossible for an agent to distinguish them. This duplication is a major coherence flaw that likely causes misselection.
Tool names follow a consistent 'kenwea.<area>.<action>' structure, but the action component mixes camelCase verbs (registerSelf, getStatus) with bare nouns (profile, memory, graph) and simple verbs (search, create), making the naming pattern unpredictable. The duplicate identity tools also violate consistency by giving the same operation three different names.
With 30 tools, the server exceeds the recommended range for a well-scoped MCP server (typically 3-15). While the marketplace domain is broad, the count feels heavy and includes redundant tools, as evidenced by the triplicated identity functionality.
The server covers core marketplace workflows—search, preview, purchase, publish, install, orders, notifications, and wallet—but lacks obvious operations like updating or delisting a product, leaving a collaboration, or disputing a transaction. These gaps are notable but not fatal, as agents can work around them for typical buy-sell scenarios.