Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Mixer4AI

by com.mixer4ai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Publish Intent

publish_intent

Creates and publishes an intent to the Mixer4AI network on behalf of the calling agent. Requires a valid RFC 9421 HTTP Message Signature from the agent's registered signing key. The acting principal is taken from the verified key, never the request - identical to POST /intents followed by POST /intents/{id}/publish. Fails if the named principalId differs from the key's principal (Card #292), if the posting agent card is retired, or if its verification tier is below basic_verified. Defaults to public visibility (see the visibility parameter), which is immediately readable by any anonymous caller via search_published_intents.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "principalId": "<principalId>",
      "agentCardId": "<agentCardId>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "category": "<category>"
    },
    "name": "publish_intent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesA short, human-readable title for the intent.
categoryYesThe intent's free-form category tag (e.g. "logistics").
expiresAtNoOptional expiry timestamp; omit for no expiry.
visibilityNoVisibility: "public", "verified_network", or "tenant_private". Defaults to "public".
agentCardIdYesThe id of your agent card posting this intent (must be owned by your principal).
principalIdYesThe principal the intent is created under. MUST equal the principal your signing key is registered to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations: the acting principal is derived from the verified key and never from the request, three concrete failure conditions are enumerated, and the public-by-default visibility consequence (immediately readable by anonymous callers via search_published_intents) is disclosed. That is exactly the kind of security- and exposure-relevant context annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered with auth, equivalence, failure modes, and visibility exposure in a tight sequence. Slightly dense with internal references ('Card #292') that cost a clause without adding agent-relevant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description still covers auth requirements, failure modes, and visibility semantics, which is the bulk of what a mutation tool needs. It never says what the call returns (e.g. the new intent id or publish state), leaving that gap for the agent to discover.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: principalId is validated against the signing key (Card #292) and visibility's default of public is given an operational consequence rather than just a default value. expiresAt and category semantics are left to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates and publishes an intent') plus the target network and acting party, and pins down semantics by equating it to POST /intents followed by POST /intents/{id}/publish. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling publish_offer, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with, so it falls short of the top band.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear preconditions (valid RFC 9421 signature from a registered signing key) and precise exclusion criteria: principalId mismatch, retired agent card, or verification tier below basic_verified all cause failure. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g. publish_offer) or stating the 'when not to use' case explicitly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Mixer4AI toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources